Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Summer Time

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider continuing summer time throughout the year in order to encourage trade between the United Kingdom and Western Europe.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Thomas): My right hon. and learned Friend recognises that the adoption of permanent summer time would bring some advantages in trading with Western European countries and that many people would welcome it for other reasons. It would, however, inconvenience certain major industries, such as farming, and would mean that during a part of the winter more people, including school children would have to leave home in the dark. My right hon. and learned Friend proposes to keep the matter under review.

Mr. Tilney: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the difference in lunch times in the winter months means that the period for business in this country and countries on the other side of the North Sea and the English Channel becomes very limited and that telephone lines get clogged, to the detriment of British exports?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of this difficulty. It is one of the matters which he is bearing in mind at the present time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Would the hon. Gentleman's right hon. and learned

Friend bear in mind that there are two sides to this question and that the advantage to trade with Europe might be extremely limited? Will he bear in mind that in the United States of America they seem to do quite a lot of trade with themselves although they have three time-belts and that the western side of the country, with which he is not unacquainted, by virtue of its longitude enjoys throughout the year a considerable period of this so-called daylight saving, and will he strictly limit this monkeying about with the clock?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend is bearing that in mind also.

Complaints Against Police

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied, in the light of the Mars-Jones Report, that the aim of securing full, vigorous and impartial inquiry into complaints against the police is adequately met by the new provisions in the 1964 Police Bill; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): As I reminded the House on 3rd December last, the procedure for dealing with complaints has been altered in a number of respects since the date of the incidents dealt with in Mr. Mars-Jones Report. The new arrangements meet all the more serious criticisms made by Mr. Mars-Jones of the earlier procedure.
It is too soon to say whether these arrangements will secure the objects referred to by the hon. Member; I hope they will. I have, however, asked H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary to pay particular attention to the manner in which complaints are dealt with, and I intend to keep this under close review.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the fact that these circumstances could, in fact, be repeated under the existing mechanics of the 1964 Act? This gives rise to a considerable degree of concern, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman continue to give this matter his closest personal attention, since it is important in the interests of re-establishing good faith between the police and


public that these inquiries are seen to be impartial?

Sir F. Soskice: I entirely agree that the relations between the public and the police are of absolutely prime importance, and I will certainly bear what the hon. Gentleman has just said in mind. The most perfect system cannot be free from some defects, but I am very closely watching this. I want to give the 1964 Act at any rate a trial, bearing in mind the changes that have been made since the Mars-Jones Report and in the light of it.

Prison Medical Service (Report)

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the recommendations made by the Working Party on the Prison Medical Service have now been carried out; how many psychiatrists have been appointed jointly by his Department and regional hospital boards; what steps are being taken fully to implement the recommendations of the Report; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that adequate facilities are available in all institutions and prisons under his control to ensure proper treatment leading to mental health of those detained; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Miss Alice Bacon): A committee on which officials of my Department and of the Ministry of Health have the valuable assistance of Dr. T. C. N. Gibbens of the Institute of Psychiatry, and Dr. Peter Scott of the Maudsley Hospital are dealing with the implementation of all the Working Party's recommendations and are giving priority to the question of joint psychiatric appointments with regional hospital boards and teaching hospitals at consultant and registrar levels. My right hon. Friend hopes that it will be possible to introduce a number of these posts in the coming financial year.

Mr. Abse: Might I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply, and might I hope that the Committee, with its distinguished members, will act with as much expedition as possible in view of the way in which the public are looking to the

implementation of this Report to assist in remedial treatment of criminals and research into the aetiology of crime?

Miss Bacon: I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is very anxious to get on with the implementation of the whole of the report as soon as possible.

Timothy John Evans

Mr. Ian Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make an official declaration of the innocence of Timothy John Evans; and if he will take steps to make arrangements for the transfer of his body to his mother's keeping and for any other appropriate restitution.

Sir F. Soskice: Even if the innocence of Evans were established, I have no power to make an official declaration of it. I shall, however, be ready, if the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill becomes law, to consider sympathetically an application in respect of any executed person for a licence under Section 25 of the Burial Act, 1857, authorising the removal of the remains for private burial.

Mr. Gilmour: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the first part of his answer will be particularly disappointing to those who recall his attitude to the case when it was debated in the House on 15th June, 1961? Would he not agree that virtually nobody outside the Home Office who has closely studied the case has serious doubts about the innocence of Evans on the charge of murder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and will he not accept that until the Home Office is prepared to make this declaration and stop taking refuge in technicalities its word on similar matters will inevitably lack weight?

Sir F. Soskice: When the matter was previously debated I pressed for an inquiry. That was some three or four years ago. I really do not think that an inquiry would serve any useful purpose at this stage four years later. It would be impossible to arrive at the truth. I certainly think it would be kinder not to express views one way or the other as to whether this unfortunate man was or was not guilty of the offence with which he was charged, and I do not propose to join in the controversy.

Mr. Will Griffiths: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend recall that he and many hon. Members on both sides of the House were thoroughly dissatisfied with the outcome of that inquiry three years ago, and that being so, ought he not, now that he has some executive responsibility, to set up a further inquiry to probe the validity of the views that he held three years ago?

Sir F. Soskice: If I thought that an inquiry really would elicit the truth about this tragic case at this late time, I should certainly feel favourably disposed towards setting up such an inquiry. But I am convinced, having carefully considered it, that it really is not feasible many years after the event now to arrive at any reliable view, and, therefore, I think it is much better that the matter should be left as it is.

Mr. Gilmour: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what event has taken place between 15th June, 1961, and today which makes it inexpedient now to hold an inquiry if it was expedient to have an inquiry then? Would he say why it would be kinder to the relatives of Timothy Evans not to say that he was innocent if he was, in fact, innocent?

Sir F. Soskice: If nothing else has taken place, the passage of three and a half years has taken place, and each year that goes by makes it more unlikely that the truth can be ascertained by reopening the inquiry. Therefore, I really do not think it would be in the public interest to do so, nor do I think it would be conducive to any useful purpose to engage in public controversy at this stage as to what the true facts underlying that case were.

Long-Term Prisoners

Mr. Bishop: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied that long-term prisoners, and particularly those convicted of murder and other serious crimes, are likely through their detention and the treatment available to become better citizens; and whether he will review the present system to ensure that such prisoners have more opportunity to become so.

Miss Bacon: My right hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the treatment in prison of murderers and others

serving long sentences. I would, however, point out that of sixty-one male prisoners released from life imprisonment during the five years 1958–1962 only three, one of whom was subsequently released again, had been returned to prison by the end of 1964.

Mr. Bishop: Would the Minister not agree that the speedy implementation of some of the recommendations in the Anson Report about work for prisoners would remove some of their frustrations and help towards rehabilitation, and would enable some prisoners on release eventually to become more useful citizens?

Miss Bacon: Yes, Sir; my right hon and learned Friend wants to progress as fast as possible with the provision of adequate work for prisoners and also an extension of the hostel scheme. If my hon. Friend will await the reply to Question No. 28, he will see that we plan to do a great deal in this respect.

Prisoners (Identification Photographs)

Mr. Jopling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to what extent it is his policy to keep up-to-date photographs of persons serving long-term prison sentences.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will issue a directive to prison governors to maintain up-to-date photographs of all potentially dangerous prisoners within their charge.

Miss Bacon: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on 21st January to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Murton).

Mr. Joplin: Is the Minister aware of the very serious public disquiet which followed the escape of the convicted murderer, Smith, from Wormwood Scrubbs in December, when it was discovered that there was no photograph of him less than 17 years old and an Identikit photograph had to be constructed? Could the hon. Lady tell us what period of time has been recommended to prison governors for the retaking of photographs, particularly in view of the answer to the Question to


which she referred, which mentioned only recognisable photographs, and one wonders whether that will go far enough?

Miss Bacon: We appreciate that there was difficulty about that prisoner's escape, and that is why we issued fresh instructions. Obviously, a photograph needs to be recognisable, and that is the whole purpose of having recent photographs.

Mr. Hunt: Can the hon. Lady be a little more specific? How often are the photographs to be taken? The photograph of Smith was 17 years old. Would the hon. Lady not agree that if hanging is to be abolished, the public are entitled to expect not only that maximum security precautions shall be taken in respect of murderers in prison but that in the event of their escaping up-to-date, accurate photographs shall be immediately available? We want reassurance on that point.

Miss Bacon: I think it is very unreasonable to suggest that we should take photographs at specific intervals. After all, some people change in looks more frequently than others do. Provided that we have a recognisable, up-to-date photograph, I think that is all that is necessary.

Sir Richard Glyn: Would the Minister agree that it is not sufficient merely to have a photograph which is, as she describes it, recognisably that of the prisoner? What is needed is a photograph from which a prisoner can be recognised if he or she escapes. That is what is lacking at the present time. Bearing in mind the enormous cost to the community of retaking escaped prisoners, will she look at the matter again?

Miss Bacon: It was because we realised that there was a difficulty that we gave fresh instructions. I am pretty certain that the instructions that we have given will overcome this difficulty.

Aircraft Passengers (Immigration Control)

Mr. Newens: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority an immigration official took the names of passengers who had taken part in a lobby of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Paris on Tuesday 15th December, when those

passengers returned to Gatwick Airport on Wednesday 16th December; and what was the purpose of this official's action.

Sir F. Soskice: No names of any such passengers were recorded by the immigration officer. I am informed, however, that in the discharge of his duty a police officer briefly noted certain particulars connected with this flight.

Mr. Newens: Why was this particular group singled out for this treatment? What was the objective which the police officer had in view? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that this practice is not continued on future occasions of this sort?

Sir F. Soskice: My information is that the passengers in question were not singled out for any special treatment. The officer in question was carrying out purely normal routine duties, and in the course of the discharge of those duties he noted the particulars which he thought might be of some interest.

Sir F. Bennett: Could not one of the purposes have been in order to help to compile a list of potential future Labour Ministers?

Abolition of Death Penalty (Police Representations)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Police Officers' Association in regard to the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill; what extra protection he proposes to provide for police officers whilst on duty; and if he will make a statement.

Sir F. Soskice: The Police Federation have represented to me that capital punishment should be retained for the murder of a police officer acting in the execution of his duty or of any person coming to his assistance. With regard to extra protection, I am satisfied that other penalties which are available to the courts for attacks on police officers whilst on duty are adequate.

Sir C. Osborne: May I ask two simple questions? First, what answer has the right hon. and learned Gentleman given to the police on their first request? Secondly, does he think it fair to the police officers that they should risk their lives trying to protect civilians and that


the Government should not give them the protection to which they think they are entitled? Does he not think that the present action is unfair to police officers?

Sir F. Soskice: The answer which I give was that in the opinion which I have formed and in any advice which I should tender on any necessary occasion it was not desirable or in the public interest to retain the death penalty for the purpose indicated. I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by so doing. If we start retaining the death penalty for individual types of murder, we are back to where we were in the Homicide Act, 1957.

Mr. Rees-Davies: In the light of the very great increase in gangsterism, particularly in the protection racket, and more particularly in the London area, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider reviewing whether police officers ought not to carry some sort of offensive weapon, even if not guns, having regard to the very substantial and striking increase in crimes of violence?

Sir F.. Soskice: To begin with, I do not accept that the rise in the number of crimes of violence is so striking. It fluctuates. Secondly, I am certain that public opinion at large and police opinion is very much against police officers being armed in general. I think that it puts them in a very invidious position if they are armed and that it is in the general interest that they should be regarded as other citizens and treated and respected as such.

Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, give notice that I shall raise the matter at the earliest moment on the Adjournment?

Police Forces (Recruitment)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is now the total shortage of men in police forces.

Mr. George Thomas: The total strength of male police officers in England and Wales on 31st December, 1964, was 8,628 below the establishment. But in some forces where recruitment has been persistently difficult, the authorised establishment falls short of what is required.

In order to determine the true shortage my right hon. and learned Friend proposes to ask the police authorities concerned to review their establishments, in consultation with H.M. Inspectors of Constabulary.

Mr. Digby: Is it not true to say that there is an overall shortage of about 20,000? Is not this an alarming figure at this time? Would the hon. Gentleman draw to the attention of his right hon. and learned Friend the interesting series of articles at present appearing in The Times? Can he give any idea of his attitude towards the proposals of the Police Federation, which have been published today?

Mr. Thomas: We have read with interest the articles in The Times. The hon. Member has, however, overestimated the deficiency in our view. It may well be that taking into account the increases of establishment already approved and the necessity to implement the 42-hour week, the true deficiency may be in the region of 15,000. But, of course, with the aid of up-to-date equipment and other means, we may be able to meet our needs with fewer than that number.

Mr. Snow: Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to the fact that the image of the police may be somewhat adversely affected by unreal television programmes and that in the case of "Z Cars" many would-be recruits may be put off by the unreal and harsh discipline meted out to personnel in that series?

Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend will no doubt see my hon. Friend's remarks. I am a very great supporter of "Dixon of Dock Green".

Sir J. Hobson: Can the hon. Member tell us a little more about the locations of the major deficiencies on the present establishment? Are they in the great conurbations of London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool? Secondly, upon what basis are the police authorities to be asked to suggest figures for their new establishments in the review, and how quickly is it expected that this review of establishments will be completed?

Mr. Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite correct in that the largest deficiencies are in the


greater conurbations. The Metropolitan Police are over 5,000 below the minimum requirements. In making their assessments, local police authorities will be advised by Her Majesty's inspectors. It has been impossible to find a formula yet for the proper scale of policing, but the Home Office Police Research and Planning Branch is investigating whether such a formula could be evolved.

Unsolved Crimes

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unsolved crimes were committed in 1963 and in 1953, respectively.

Sir F. Soskice: The number of indictable offences known to the police in England and Wales in 1963 was 978,076, and the number of such offences cleared up in that year was 421,942. The corresponding figures for 1953 were 472,989 and 222,100. The offences cleared up in a particular year include, of course, offences committed before it began; and similarly offences may be cleared up after the year in which they were committed.

Mr. Digby: Is it not alarming that the total number of offences not cleared up is increasing? Is it not true to say that in London only about one in four of the crimes committed is actually solved.

Sir F. Soskice: I do not quite accept that that is correct. If one takes percentages, the number which were not cleared up in 1953 was 53 per cent. and in 1963 it was 57 per cent. There is an increase, but it is not such a startling increase as all that. But I agree that the total number is a matter for the very gravest concern, and I am anxiously trying to do all I possibly can to retrieve the situation.

Mr. Hogg: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say exactly what he means by "cleared up"? Is this the convictions rate, or what other criteria are used?

Sir F. Soskice: It includes several categories. It includes those for which a person is arrested or summoned or for which he is cautioned. It includes those taken into consideration by a court when the offender is found guilty of another

charge, and certain of those in which the person is known or suspected to be guilty but in which, for some reason or another, he cannot be brought to trial—for example, because he has died or for some reason of that sort.

Murders

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there has been any increase in the weekly averages of the numbers of murders since the Bill on the abolition of capital punishment was given a Second Reading; how many murders were committed in December, 1964 and January, 1965; and what were the comparable figures for December, 1963 and January, 1964.

Sir F. Soskice: The weekly average number of cases initially recorded as murders known to the police in England and Wales from 22nd December, 1964, to 31st January, 1965, was 4·1, and the corresponding weekly average for the year ended 21st December, 1964, was 4·7. The total figures for the months of December, 1964, and January, 1965, were 23 and 11, and for December, 1963, and January, 1964, they were 18 and 19. All these figures include cases which may be found not to be murder.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the widespread public anxiety about what may be the results of passing the Bill, would the Home Secretary agree to publish periodic figures showing the murder rate, as the public has no other way of finding out the facts? If over a period there appears to be an increase in murder, particularly capital murder, will he consider altering the provisions of the Bill?

Sir F. Soskice: As the hon. Gentleman knows, figures are published at much longer intervals. I will certainly do what I can to see that the public is kept fully informed of the progress of the increase or decrease of crime, but figures for short periods looked at by themselves are apt to be misleading, because they naturally fluctuate from time to time, although over longer periods they become instructive and, of course, are published.

Sir E. Boyle: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that while we agree that a short-term look at the figures can easily be misleading


and unhelpful, it would be very useful if the admirable Home Office publicaton "Murder" could be regularly brought up to date? I think that the whole House was grateful for the figures which we had before Christmas and periodic revisions would be helpful.

Sir F. Soskice: I certainly agree.

Licensing (Report)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Ramsay-Willis Committee will publish its findings on the subject of licensing.

Sir F. Soskice: I expect to receive the Report of the Committee in time for publication before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman is considering the report of the Ramsay-Willis Committee, will he put his mind to this little problem: that a housewife who wants to buy a bottle of beer or a can of beer for her husband during the daytime often finds it impossible to buy it in a supermarket and has to go into a back street to find an off-licence? Could not some guidance be given to local authorities to widen the licensing system to permit the sale of such beer in supermarkets so that housewives can buy it there?

Sir F. Soskice: I am not sure that that arises from the Question, but I will certainly keep in mind the dilemma of the housewife so movingly described by the hon. Gentleman.

Firearms

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether, in view of the increase in crimes of violence, he will introduce legislation to stiffen the penalties for illegal possession of firearms;
(2) if he will arrange for an amnesty to be granted to persons who surrender illegally held firearms to the police by a fixed date.

Mr. Charles Morrison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to amend the law regarding the control of sale of all forms of firearms and the issuing of licences for these weapons.

Mr. William Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the continued incidence of criminal offences in which firearms are carried, if he is satisfied that the penalties for so doing under the Firearms Act of 1937 are adequate; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps, by amendment of the Firearms Act or by a limited amnesty, or both, to reduce the number of pistols and revolvers in private possession, and to increase the penalties for illegal possession.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a statement, following his consultation with chief officers of police, on the adequacy of the present legislation affecting firearms.

Mr. Webster: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he now proposes to take to establish a tighter control over the possession of firearms.

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he will make a statement as to the adequacy of the present legislation affecting firearms;
(2) whether he will introduce legislation imposing conditions as to physical security in the premises of dealers in firearms, and requiring losses and discrepancies to be notified to the police within 24 hours.

Sir Richard Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will extend the present definition of a firearm to cover any shotgun whose barrels have been shortened or any shotgun whose barrels are less than 24 inches in length; and if he will make a statement about the increased use of shotguns by violent criminals;
(2) whether he will introduce legislation to increase the present maximum penalty for possessing a firearm without a firearm certificate to a fine of £200 and/or six months' imprisonment for a first offence, with substantially heavier maximum penalties for second and


subsequent offences, or for carrying a firearm in a public place without owning a firearm certificate.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the increase in the possession and use of firearms, he will now introduce legislation to prohibit the ownership of any firearms, in the sense in which the word is popularly understood, to include shotguns and airguns, except by licence under stringent penalties.

Sir F. Soskice: The examination that I am conducting of the adequacy of the present legislation affecting firearms is not yet complete, but I shall make a statement shortly.

Mr. Braine: While I am sure that the whole House and the country will be pleased to hear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is conducting this inquiry, would he not agree that the police are seriously hampered by existing loopholes in the law, especially in relation to smooth bore weapons such as shotguns? Would he not agree that there is the strongest possible case for bringing these weapons within the ambit of the Firearms Act? Is not the time ripe for another amnesty, but ensuring on this occasion that the weapons surrendered are not returned to the trade or exported, as they were on the last occasion, as that carries no guarantee that they will not be returned to circulation?

Sir F. Soskice: I can assure the hon Gentleman that we are considering these practical alternatives and that among other things we shall consider an amnesty.

Mr. Morrison: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind when considering this matter that there may be a need to tighten up control over premises from which firearms are sold, premises which may be unsuitable for such purposes, partly because they are easily broken into?

Sir F. Soskice: That is certainly one of the things I have in mind.

Mr. Yates: Will the Home Secretary consider again before issuing statements asking the public to assist the taking on of criminals, who might possess arms, before his new legislation comes forward, because it is rather invidious to ask people to take on armed criminals if we

are not sure whether the police are in a position to prosecute them for carrying arms in public?

Sir F. Soskice: I recognise the urgency of all considerations affecting this matter and I am pressing on with it as hard as I possibly can.

Mr. Lloyd: In considering an amnesty, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that when this policy was pursued resolutely before the war, when I was Under-Secretary at the Home Office, some 70,000 weapons were surrendered, together with several million rounds of ammunition?

Sir F. Soskice: I have carefully studied all the figures and have in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mrs. Butler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that there is great public anxiety about this matter, that a very early decision on his inquiries would be welcomed, and that it would be particularly appreciated if it were required that anybody wanting firearms of any kind should have a police certificate before purchase? This would not seem to be any hardship to farmers, or others with a legitimate need for buying guns, but it would be some safeguard over the present very loose system of licensing.

Sir F. Soskice: Obviously, I am fully conscious of the public anxiety about this matter and, if it were not otherwise made plain, it would be made pellucidly plain by the many Questions addressed to me on this subject. Certainly I will consider everything my hon. Friend has said, but I have to consider how legislation, if any, can be most effectively enforced.

Mr. Weitzman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take into account the fact that voluntary co-operation between the police and dealers in firearms about physical security is not sufficient, and will he take steps seriously to consider legislation on this matter?

Sir F. Soskice: A very obvious and important aspect of this matter is the source from which criminals can obtain firearms, and one would naturally have to consider the position of dealers in firearms and any other persons possessing stores of firearms.

Sir Richard Glyn: Will the Home Secretary very seriously consider whether the existing penalties for improper possession of firearms are not outmoded and derisory and have no deterrent effect whatever? Will he consider imposing severer penalties for persons carrying firearms in public places and particularly the possession of shortened shotguns, the law as to which is now full of loopholes?

Sir F. Soskice: I will certainly consider all those things.

Sir J. Hobson: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that in principle it is much more effective to hit hard those who are in illegal possession of firearms, or who use them in the course of crime, rather than to set up complicated administrative machinery which affects the ordinary innocent citizen and is usually wholly ineffective? In particular, will he bear in mind the experience in New York, where there are the most elaborate provisions for the licensing of firearms, but where 22 per cent. of the crime is committed by persons carrying firearms?

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has put his finger right on one of the central points of the inquiry. One has obviously to make any steps one takes completely effective and not put immense burdens on people who could not in any sense be said to be suspect.

Plastic Bag Containers

Sir R. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he is aware that the recommendations of his Department on the thickness and perforations of plastic bags are being disregarded; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure compliance with these recommendations in future;
(2) if he is aware of the danger to small children of the distribution of plastic bag containers of a gauge of less than 150 and with inadequate perforations for ventilation; what action he plans to take; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomas: My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the dangers which plastic bags present to young children and it is for this reason that the Home Office has strongly pressed

manufacturers of plastic bags to ensure, so far as possible, that purchasers buying bags for house-to-house collections are supplied only with perforated bags made of film not less than 150 gauge. If distributors are using bags which do not comply with these recommendations, the Home Office is anxious to receive particulars so that the matter may be taken up with the distributors concerned. Meanwhile, my right hon. and learned Friend is considering what further action is necessary.

Sir R. Thompson: Would the hon. Gentleman act with all possible speed in this matter? Does he realise that the present recommendations are not really effective enough? Would he consider, for instance, taking statutory powers under the Consumer Protection Act? Does he know that over 100 deaths of young children by asphyxiation from plastic bags have occurred in the last four years and that there is intense anxiety on the part of mothers about this?

Mr. Thomas: My information is that the number of children under the age of 15 who have died in this way is as follows: 1960, nil; 1961, 9; 1962, 10; and 1963, 4. So far as the Home Office is aware, none of these deaths was attributable to a polythene bag distributed by a house-to-house collector of old clothing. There is no power under the Consumer Protection Act for us to regulate the use which is made of consumer goods, but we do not underestimate the importance of this matter. My right hon. and learned Friend is giving it consideration.

Taxi-cabs (Six-mile Limit)

Mr. Dudley Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in his consultations with taxi-cab owners over extending the present six-mile meter limit, particularly with regard to taxis plying for hire at London Airport.

Mr. George Thomas: Representatives of all sides of the London taxi-cab trade have expressed their views on proposals for revision of the six-mile limit. My right hon. and learned Friend is giving further consideration to the question in the light of the trade's representations but he is not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a fair number of taxi drivers as well as practically everybody else believe that the six-mile limit is out of date? Would it not be sensible if it were extended to, say, 14 miles to combat the exploitation of passengers arriving at London Airport? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—of the outrageous demands made by some taxi drivers in respect of journeys into London?

Mr. Thomas: It is quite true that when a journey is over six miles or is of more than an hour's duration the driver and the hirer have to haggle over the price. It is unfair to call it negotiation. We are aware that the cab owners have strong views on this question, but there is some disagreement, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, on the part of taxicab drivers about it. My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of all the difficulties. He travels from London Airport. We will do our best to meet this question.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Besides taking into account the representations of the trade, the taxi drivers and taxi owners, would the hon. Gentleman take into account the public interest, which must be paramount?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman surprises me. It is the public interest which we have in mind. In 1964, about 60 complaints were received from the public. However, I have no doubt that a great many more people felt disturbed but did not take the trouble to complain. We are aware of the public interest in this matter. We need no prodding. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering it.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: While bearing in mind the public interest, would the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the interests of visitors to this country, particularly people coming here to negotiate business? This sort of thing gives a very bad impression of our arrangements. The rate charged is much higher than it is from international airports in other capitals.

Mr. Thomas: It is a fact that a great many visitors to our country have their first impression when they seek a taxi into Central London. The cab trade itself has recommended a scale of fares to cab drivers for such journeys, but they are not enforceable by law. The recommended

tariff which is exhibited at the airport includes a charge for a journey between the airport and Charing Cross or the West End of 50s. to 55s. The cab trade itself recommends this. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering what he can do.

POLARIS MISSILES (WARHEADS)

Ql. Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister what evidence is in the possession of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the efficiency and testing of the British warhead for the Polaris missile.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Our evidence comes partly from the work of our own nuclear weapons laboratory and partly from the results of tests on similar nuclear devices which have been carried out by the Americans.

Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say quite specifically whether the British warhead has been tested and, if so, by whom? With regard to the fissile material to which he referred on 17th December, is it the case or not that we can produce in this country all our requirements? Further, can he say in what respects the information which he gave on 17th December was inaccurate and false, as was alleged by the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft)?

The Prime Minister: On the question of testing, the facts are as stated in the debate on 17th December—that, as the House knows, it has not been tested but similar American ones have. With regard to the other statements which I made, I did on that occasion invite the right hon. Gentlemen opposite to come and discuss them with me if they had doubts about them, but they have not done so.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: I think that I said to the right hon. Gentleman that, although there were great difficulties about talking between the Opposition and the Government on general matters of defence, if he made any specific proposal to talk to us on any particular thing, of course I would consider it sympathetically. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That was the position of the


right hon. Gentleman when he sat on these benches. I hope that he is aware—I am sure that he is—that these are not questions on which we should go into detail at Question Time. They are very, very delicate matters.

The Prime Minister: On the particular point raised by my right hon. Friend, it is not the general question of overall defence talks; it was a specific point which was dealt with at that part of the debate. It is, of course, extremely valuable to the country that the right hon. Member for Monmouth should have written a couple of letters to the Daily Telegraph and quite a long article in the News of the World. But if he really wants agreement on the facts of this matter, and if he thinks that we are wrong, it might be a good idea if he were to accept our invitation to discuss them.

Sir A. Douglas-Home: We would like to make contact with the Prime Minister and see whether discussions on this particular matter would be valuable, as they might.

The Prime Minister: I am very glad to hear that. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will consider the broader question of defence talks and let me know when it would be convenient for me to call upon him.

LONDON TAXIS (LICENSING AND CONTROL)

Mr. Henry Clark: asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to transfer responsibility for licensing and controlling London taxis from the Home Office to the Ministry of Transport.

The Prime Minister: I am not at present satisfied that advantage would result from the transfer of responsibility from the Home Office to the Ministry of Transport suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Clark: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether this decision was dictated by the interests of an integrated transport system or efficiency, or both?

The Prime Minister: As the whole House recognises, this is a different question. The arguments are finely balanced. In terms of other transport facilities in

the area, there is obviously a case for transfer to the Ministry of Transport. I think, however, that the House will feel that on the other side—and perhaps this is on balance the overriding argument—it is desirable that the Department controlling these services should be the one responsible for the police.

PUBLIC AUCTIONS

Mr. A. Royle: asked the Prime Minister if he will set up a Royal Commission to inquire into the law affecting public public auctions, and to institute an inquiry into the methods of conducting Government surplus sales.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the law and practice relating to public auctions.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend a Royal Commission to inquire into the knock-out and other practices arising from public auctions.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of recent disclosures, he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the law and practice relating to auctions and valuation in this country.

Mr. Abse: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the damage caused by knock-out and other practices to the reputation of Great Britain as an international art centre, he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the law relating to public auctions.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and the other Ministers concerned are considering whether practices at auction sales can be improved by voluntary regulation and also whether further legislation is necessary and practicable. There have recently been exploratory talks on both matters with the British Antique Dealers Association and the Chartered Institute of Auctioneers and Estate Agents. There is also the important question of the conduct of auctions of Government surplus stores. When these discussions are complete we shall


consider whether there is a case for an independent inquiry.

Mr. Royle: Will the Prime Minister, when that time comes, not dismiss the possibility of setting up a Royal Commission to examine this matter in great detail? Public opinion has been greatly shocked by the exposure this morning of the scandalous developments which have been taking place in Government surplus sales which have affected and, indeed, swindled the general taxpayer?

The Prime Minister: I certainly share the hon. Member's concern about this matter. When the discussions are complete, we shall consider whether there should be an independent inquiry—not necessarily a Royal Commission; it might be better to proceed by departmental inquiry as long as we are satisfied that the matter can be thoroughly inquired into. In common, however, with all other hon. Members who have served upon the Public Accounts Committee at one time or another, I certainly share the deep concern about the extent to which the taxpayer is being fleeced by some of these rings at auctions of Government surplus property.

Mr. Ridley: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the reasons why this takes place in the book trade and in the antique world, as well as in the Government surplus world, are the same and that the problem relates to defects in our method of auctioneering and valuation? I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, but will he, therefore, make sure that he follows this one until he gets the right answer?

The Prime Minister: Yes; I think that the motive is the same. A group of people want to make more money than they are entitled to do by getting together and depressing the price. The reason is exactly the same in all three. This is why it is important to have the discussions to which I have referred. But in the very special case of disposals of Government property, where the taxpayer is paying when this sort of thing happens, there is mounting evidence that our traditional acceptance of competitive tender, which we always have or try to have in these cases, is no longer competitive.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: While welcoming what the Prime Minister has said, may

I ask him to ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to look in particular at the case of the Antiquarian Booksellers Association, where some time ago a voluntary regulation was employed? It would be satisfactory to know whether this has worked out in practice.

The Prime Minister: I think that the House is aware that there was very great concern just before Christmas at certain events in the book trade and, as I have mentioned, my right hon. Friend is having discussions particularly with the interests responsible.

Mr. Abse: May I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for the rigorous action which clearly has been taken in these matters? May I particularly draw his attention to the fact that, apart from the question of the loss to the taxpayer on Government surplus property, there is a serious danger, which cannot be underestimated, to the contribution which sales of art objects and antiques can make to the economy of the country, in so far as it is appalling that foreigners who usually use London as the medium of selling these goods are now beginning to be afraid that they will be cheated in the way they undoubtedly have been in the past?

The Prime Minister: I would not take this too far. It is, of course, a fact that our auction system has been widely respected by people all over the world who want to sell. It is of paramount importance that the good name which we have had in the past in this respect should not be in any sense smudged by certain recent things which need to be inquired into.

GEORGE CROSS ANNUITY

Sir J. Smyth: asked the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given, following fresh representations to him, regarding the grant to holders of the George Cross of the same —100 tax-free annuity, irrespective of need and any other conditions, as is at present granted to holders of the Victoria Cross.

The Prime Minister: As the George Cross is the civil counterpart of the Victoria Cross I am proposing that the —100 annuity should be extended as from


the coming financial year to holders of the award for whom the United Kingdom Government are responsible. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has agreed to include in the next Finance Bill a proposal for the exemption of the annuity from taxation, Following the equivalent exemption for holders of the Victoria Cross.

Sir J. Smyth: Does the Prime Minister realise that his reply will give very great satisfaction to the 124 living holders of the George Cross in Great Britain and the Commonwealth and to their 236 comrades of the Victoria Cross? I thank the Prime Minister for agreeing to reconsider the matter and for the personal attention that he has given to it.

The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member has been more than fair. When he first raised his Question in the House, I gave a negative answer but said that I would be prepared to look into it with him again if he would provide further information and evidence of hardship. On looking at that, I thought that the issue was conclusive, but I am sure that we all owe a debt to the hon. and gallant Member for pressing this matter.

UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will now adhere to the United Nations Charter of Human Rights.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the Charter of Human Rights of the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: I think hon. Members have in mind the Universial Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 10th December, 1948. The United Kingdom voted for this Declaration, which was proclaimed in the form of a Resolution of the General Assembly and which was not intended to constitute a binding legal obligation. The Declaration does not have the status of a treaty or convention and it is not therefore

legally possible for any State to adhere or become a party to it. But the Declaration does of course have great moral authority which Her Majesty's Government, for their part, will do all in their power to support.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the powers which his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary retains unto himself contravene this Declaration?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member has had this Question on the Order Paper many weeks running and I am glad that he has finally put it. I have been waiting to say that if he will let me have evidence of any particular contravention of the Declaration, I will be very glad to look at it. As the hon. Member knows, it is not a question of adhering or not adhering to the Declaration. The only instrument to which internationally we can do that is the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the United Kingdom became a party on 8th March, 1951.

Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our law affecting aliens is in somewhat flagrant breach of the Declaration? Will he urge his right hon. and learned Friend who is at present considering the matter to appoint a Select Committee to see whether he can suggest means whereby we can put our aliens law in order in this respect?

The Prime Minister: I have heard some eloquent speeches by my hon. and learned Friend year after year in debates on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bills on this point, and now that this one area has been identified by my hon. and learned Friend I will, of course, look into it.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Can the Prime Minister say whether the War Damage Bill is within the Declaration?

The Prime Minister: I certainly do not think that it is in any way in contravention of it. I thought, however, that there was a lot of difficulty between hon. Members on the Front Bench and those on the back benches among the party opposite. Had not they better sort that out before they put questions?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTIONS

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper listing the resolutions of the Security Council and the General Assembly by which Her Majesty's Government regard the United Kingdom as being legally bound, and the action which has been taken on them.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. As I informed the hon. Member on 26th November, it would not be practicable, in view of the large number of resolutions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly, to list those which are and those which are not legally binding. However, copies of all resolutions are available in the House of Commons Library, and if any hon. Member wishes to seek information about the nature of a particular resolution, he is, of course, at liberty to put down a Question.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is not the Prime Minister aware that it is an extremely arduous task even for a hon. Member of this House to find exactly what these resolutions are and to what extent they are binding? Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some simplification could not be arrived at?

The Prime Minister: Since there have been 200 Security Council formal resolutions and 1,993 resolutions of the General Assembly, to assemble them all and publish them would be quite an arduous undertaking. That is why I think it better to identify particular areas in which the hon. Member or any other hon. Member is interested.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Does not the Prime Minister agree that when voting for a United Nations resolution either in the Security Council or otherwise it is important to have regard to the spirit of the resolution and to vote for the spirit and not to vote for every word in all the terms of the resolution? Does he agree that if that is done, and if there is an explanation of vote, that is the proper way in which one should vote for a United Nations resolution?

The Prime Minister: I think that every resolution has to be looked at on its merits, but I understand that the right

hon. Gentleman still has a guilt-complex about the South African arms embargo

Mr. Thomas: Does not the Prime Minister agree with the explanation of vote which was given by the United Kingdom representative on the three resolutions to which he is referring, namely, those on 7th August, 1963, 4th December, 1963, and 18th June, 1964?

The Prime Minister: Frankly, I do not disagree at all. Our representative there, on instructions from the Government, was crystal-clear about the attitude of the Government on all these points. What we disagree about is the instruction given to him.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the last two supplementary questions, will the Prime Minister make it clear that, under Article 25, every member State is bound to accept and carry out every resolution passed by the Security Council in accordance with the Charter, and that nothing is said in the Charter about clarifying it according to what is described as the spirit of the resolution?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend has correctly interpreted Article 25. I only wish that there was equal unanimity on the interpretation of Article 19.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' MEETING

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. WILLIAM HAMILTON: To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the proposed Commonwealth conference of Prime Ministers.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Question No. Q16.
I have been consulting other Commonwealth Heads of Government about the possibility of holding a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting during the summer.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that there is general agreement to a meeting during the second half of June. The precise dates are to be settled later.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole country will be gratified by this further new initiative by himself and the Government? Will he consider—I am sure he will—the possibility of putting on the agenda the question of increased Commonwealth assistance in the serious and costly South-East Asia situation which this country is now shouldering almost on its own?
Secondly, will he make it quite clear to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers that he rejects the view constantly put forward by the Opposition, particularly at the time of the negotiations about the Common Market, that the Commonwealth is a declining asset, and that Commonwealth trade must inevitably fall?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that it is right to say that we are carrying the whole burden in Malaysia to deal with the attacks made by Indonesia. I am glad to be able to tell the House that earlier this week we had an extremely valuable meeting with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand on this question, which has already resulted in a still further increase in the very valuable assistance and co-operation which they are giving in that area.
On the second question, I feel that while last year's Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference did some very valuable work indeed—not least, I think, those parts of the communique which affected Southern Rhodesia—one of the gaps in the work of the conference—and I commented on it at the time—was insufficient discussion on economic links within the Commonwealth, particularly trade links on which, to judge from the communique, apparently nothing was done. It is very important to use the first Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in the new setting to discuss what we can do to help one another to expand trade. Certainly, we absolutely and totally reject the idea that Commonwealth trade is a declining asset.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are glad to hear that there is to be another Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, and I endorse what the Prime Minister said about Commonwealth

co-operation to deal with the Indonesian threat to Malaysia. We are glad that there is to be another conference, because we think that the more often the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth meet, within reason, the better.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the last conference was extremely successful. If he refreshes his memory, he will find that the Prime Ministers considered the possibilities of assisting each other in the economic field, and I hope that this will be carried further.

The Prime Minister: As I said at the time—and it was clear from the right hon. Gentleman's statement—there were some valuable discussions on assistance, on development aid, and things of that kind. Quite valuable, and one or two new proposals were put forward, which are going ahead. What I do not think there was any discussion on at all—indeed, I asked the right hon. Gentleman about this at the time—was on trade links, and what we could do to agree to buy more from one another on a trade basis as opposed to development aid.
I feel that a great deal of harm has been done to our Commonwealth trade links by certain events over the last two years. Although it is a little late in the day, we want to put that right as soon as we can.

Mr. Grimond: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us about the agenda of the conference, but will he bear in mind that one subject which might usefully be discussed is the question of immigration? Secondly, will he at some point inform the House who is to come, particularly from Africa and the Caribbean? Thirdly, may I ask how much consideration has been given to the possibility of sometimes holding the meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in places other than London, in other parts of the Commonwealth? Lastly, will he consider informing the House in the near future of the progress made on some of the recommendations of the last conference, particularly over the Commonwealth Secretariat?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman said, it is not the practice to discuss the agenda in advance, but I think that there will be general agreement that the subject he has mentioned, immigration, and trying to get agreement among


the Commonwealth countries about this programme, is important and very appropriate for such a conference. A number of new ideas, which were aired for the first time last July, have been pressed on with, and, in particular, the Secretariat idea has been the subject of a recent conference held in London, at which very good progress was made. Whether we can carry it further until we have the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference I do not know, but I think that the House will be satisfied with the progress that has been made there. Of course, we shall be prepared to consider the idea of holding future conferences in different parts of the Commonwealth, but this next conference will be held in London.

Dr. David Kerr: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia is among those who have indicated their intention to support the conference? If so, may we have an assurance that the opportunity will be seized to further the excellent work which my right hon. Friend has done to lead to a reconciliation of Southern Rhodesia's difficulties?

The Prime Minister: We are following the practice of the last conference, namely, that so long as the constitutional position of Rhodesia remains unchanged, the previous decision continues to apply, namely, that these meetings should in future be confined to the representatives of fully independent States. Mr. Smith has been told this, and that if he wishes to be present at any discussions on Rhodesia I shall be glad to put this suggestion to my Commonwealth colleagues, but he has, in fact, declined this on the ground that he could not agree that such discussion would be proper.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us welcome the emphasis on trade rather than aid, with particular reference to the proposed new Part IV of the G.A.T.T.? May I ask him again, on the question of the Commonwealth Secretariat, whether he expects that it will begin to come into operation in time for the conference, or whether it will take longer?

The Prime Minister: That is what I am not sure about, because if we are going to have the Secretariat in any form in being before the conference, we shall

have to reach agreement, including agreement on the personalities concerned, before that meeting. This kind of consultation is very difficult to hold, so I am doubtful whether we shall finalise the arrangements for the Secretariat in advance of the conference in June.

Mr. Frederic Harris: In view of the indignity suffered by the Prime Minister of Kenya on the occasion of the last Commonwealth Prime Minister's conference, will the Prime Minister ensure that at future conferences every possible protection is offered to all those coming to this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House have expressed their regret at what occurred, and we shall certainly do our best to avoid any repetition of such an incident.

COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. FLETCHER-COOKE: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to repatriate Commonwealth immigrants who have entered the United Kingdom illegally.

Sir D. RENTON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is now taking to prevent evasions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. GEOFFREY LLOYD: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated extent of evasion by Commonwealth citizens of immigration controls up to the latest convenient date; and what special steps he is proposing to take to deal with it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Frank Soskice): With permission, I will now answer Questions No. 40, 69 and 75 together.
The Government have taken steps to initiate Commonwealth discussions to review the whole question of Commonwealth immigration. In the meantime, there is evidence that under the existing control evasion on a considerable scale is taking place. I cannot estimate at


all closely how many have gained admission and settled who should not; but I do not think that their number during the last two years can be less than 10,000. It is, therefore, necessary to make stricter use of the existing powers of control and for this purpose fresh instructions are being issued to immigration officers.
The fresh instructions will require immigration officers, before allowing entry, to subject to the fullest scrutiny, in whatever cases they judge to be necessary, the intention and bona fides of Commonwealth citizens seeking entry as visitors or students, as well as the authenticity of their travel documents; and to make a fuller use of their power to impose conditions specifying the period for which a Commonwealth citizen is admitted as a student or visitor.
Secondly, there is evidence that evasion is taking place by those who claim to be entitled to enter as dependants under Section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, and immigration officers will examine with greater thoroughness than hitherto has been thought necessary the identity and the validity of the claims of persons who seek entry under Section 2.
Except where very special grounds exist, I am also reviewing the present practice of allowing as a matter of discretion children under 16 coming here to join close relatives resident in this country who are not their parents.
Thirdly, we shall, where practicable, he reinforcing the staffs in posts overseas by assigning to them experienced Immigration officers to assist in dealing with applications for entry certificates.
When persons charged with having evaded the control, or having failed to comply with conditions of entry imposed upon them are prosecuted and convicted and the court in consequence makes a deportation recommendation, effect will, of course, be given to such recommendations unless there are very strong reasons for making a special exception.
We shall have to wait to see how effective these measures are when in operation before deciding whether any further steps are necessary, and we shall also be in touch with other Commonwealth Governments.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I congratulate the Home Secretary on adopting so

rapidly one of the three points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech at Hampstead yesterday. May I ask the Home Secretary whether these new arrangements, which we all welcome, will cover the passport racket, by which one passport seems to do the job of introducing 10 or 12 people into this country in the course of one year? Will he pay special attention to that question, because it is making a mockery of the present system of control?

Sir F. Soskice: On Monday last, before the Leader of the Opposition made his statement at Hampstead, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the steps which I have elaborated in my statement. I certainly will pay special attention to the passport racket. It is a serious racket, and the changes which I am announcing are largely directed to eliminating that form of evasion.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Minister of Labour plays a very important part in deciding how many people shall come in, and who shall come in? Can he say whether there is any modification in the policy of the Minister of Labour as well, with a view to tightening up the controls? Will he be prepared to report to the House from time to time so that we may be assured that these further measures of control are working?

Sir F. Soskice: I shall certainly take steps to see that the House is informed, at appropriate intervals, how this control works. As for vouchers, I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should put down a Question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this more realistic approach by the party opposite will be welcomed in the Midlands by public opinion and by social workers especially, because it will offer better chances of success in the intense effort, in housing and education, to solve the problems of immigrants which were so effectively put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his maiden speech?

Sir F. Soskice: I am certain that all hon. Members on both sides of the House


would wish evasion to be drastically checked. Those who evade are taking very unfair advantage of immigrants who do not evade and who are awaiting labour vouchers, and would make very useful citizens if they came to this country.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are overwhelming reasons for the attitude which he is adopting and the course that he is taking? There is one other proposal which I made which might be worth considering, namely, that he should assist the repatriation of people who wish to go back home, but cannot afford to do so. Will he consider that question, and also keep a very close watch on the total numbers, because it is still my opinion that they will probably have to be curtailed?

Sir F. Soskice: I shall certainly keep under the very closest review the total number of immigrants, and I will also keep in mind the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise what he is doing? Does he not realise that by these proposed modifications and adjustments related to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act he is making it impossible for the Leader of the Opposition to fight the next election on the subject of immigration?

Mr. Tilney: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman endeavour to ensure that any permanent immigrants in future can talk the English tongue?

Sir F. Soskice: Steps are being actively pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see that proper instruction is given.

Mr. Chapman: In fairness to the West Indian Governments, who, by and large, are trying to operate the Act absolutely scrupulously, will the Government make representations to other Commonwealth Governments, in areas in which we know that evasion has largely originated, that they should help at home to try to stop this evasion and the issue of false passports?

Sir F. Soskice: As I have said, we are in touch with all Commonwealth Governments on this extremely complex matter.

Sir E. Boyle: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the question of evasion has caused widespread concern among many who are keen constructively to solve this problem? Does he realise that for that reason his statement will be warmly welcomed? Is he further aware that the problem of students is particularly difficult? There are suggestions, which I cannot substantiate, that bogus institutions are being set up, setting out to cater for students but not doing so? Does he agree that part of the difficulty comes from the limited scope of Part III of the 1944 Education Act, and will he consider, with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, what can be done on this aspect of the matter?

Sir F. Soskice: I had very fully in mind all questions associated with the entry of students and I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As he will recollect, I made special reference to students in my statement.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not be making any distinction, in this tightening up over the entry of illegal immigrants, between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens, and will he also give an assurance that he will be able to make an announcement that no Commonwealth immigrant accepted in this country shall be treated on a different basis from our own citizens?

Sir F. Soskice: I accept at once that all Commonwealth citizens must be treated alike. There must be no sort of discrimination on the grounds of colour or any other reason of that sort.

Mr. Lubbock: Would the Home Secretary consider placing in the Library a copy of the instructions he is proposing to issue to immigration officers?

Sir F. Soskice: I shall issue instructions in due course. They are under consideration and I shall see that the public is adequately informed of what they consist.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Business question.

Mr. Rowland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask why you are not calling my Private Notice


Question to the Minister of Aviation on the question of the announcement of redundancies by Hawker-Siddeley Aviation, especially in view of the great public interest about the calculation on which the company's statement was based yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: I have the greatest possible sympathy with the hon. Member's anxiety. These problems confront the Chair with a great difficulty in exercising its discretion. I admit it. I did not allow the hon. Gentleman's Question, because I did not think it right in the circumstances to do so. It has never been our practice that the Chair should give publicly reasons for allowing or disallowing a Private Notice Question, and my instinct is that the House would not like me to start. If the hon. Gentleman wants his personal curiosity satisfied I shall be glad to do it in private.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to the submission made by my hon. Friend, on this point of view, Mr. Speaker, do you recall that the other day you allowed a Private Notice Question to be submitted by the right hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Mr. Thorneycroft) and that the right hon. Gentleman subsequently admitted that he did not expect an answer? Do you also realise that the statement made by the Hawker-Siddeley firm, to the effect that 14,000 men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—will be dismissed as a result of the Government's aircraft policy has no foundation in fact—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—and that that is my principal point of order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must be good about this. I do not really concede the right of an hon. Member to ask the reasons why a Private Notice Question is allowed or disallowed. It is a matter in which our practice confers discretion on the Chair. I may be thought guilty of allowing—if I may say so—statements improperly associated with a so-called point of order if I allowed a discussion on the facts of it.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your suggestion that I should be good. I always try to be good, and on this occasion I will respond to your request. All I was about to say—and this was to be my final observation—was that the statement that

appeared is calculated—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but his efforts at being good were not wholly successful. Should I allow him to continue he might get me in "bad".

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Bowden): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 8TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Law Commissions Bill, and the remaining stages of the Kenya Republic Bill.
TUESDAY, 9TH FEBRUARY—Supply [5th Allotted Day]: Motion to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair, when debate will arise on an Opposition Amendment relating to the Aircraft Industry.
WEDNESDAY, 10TH FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Bill.
Second Reading of the Armed Forces (Housing Loans) Bill.
THURSDAY, 11TH FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Gas Bill, and the remaining stages of the Nuclear Installations (Amendment) Bill.
FRIDAY, 12TH FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY, 15TH FEBRUARY—The proposed business will be: Debate on a Motion to take note of the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Law on Sunday Observance (Command No. 2528).

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Leader of the House will be aware that from time to time my hon. Friends have been asking that there should be time found for a debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland. In the light of recent events this has become more urgent and I therefore ask that time should be found by the Government for such a debate.

Mr. Bowden: It has been customary to have a full day's debate, or perhaps


two half-days, on Northern Ireland in the latter part of the Session. We might meet the convenience of the Opposition and talk through the usual channels about bringing it forward.

Mr. Lubbock: Can the Leader of the House say when we shall have a debate on the public services and Armed Forces pensions and, in particular, on the pledges that were given by the Government before the General Election on this subject?

Mr. Bowden: We still await the promised statement and when that comes forward I will consider a debate.

Mr. Dodds: Can my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the Motion on the Order Paper relating to the restriction on cigarette advertising and the need to stop this advertising on commercial television? Is he aware that there are many hon. Members on this side of the House, and even on the opposite side, who would strongly support a move of this sort?

[That this House, gravely concerned at the expenditure of large sums of money on the advertising of cigarettes and at the impact of such advertising on young people, in view of the proven dangers to health, including cancer, caused by cigarette smoking, urges Her Majesty's Government to stop all cigarette advertising on commercial television forthwith as the first step towards restricting such advertising in all media.]

Mr. Bowden: I am aware of the Motion, which has been on the Order Paper for some weeks now. There is a very great deal of interest in this subject, particularly in the effect of television advertising of cigarettes after nine o'clock at night, and its effect on children. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health that he hopes to make a statement in the near future.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether we may take it that the very welcome decision of the Government to go ahead with the Gas Bill—which is a sensible, forward-looking Measure—means that it will be much more difficult to find time for a steel Bill which is likely to be neither of those things?

Mr. Bowden: I do not foresee any difficulty whatever at the moment.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is serious concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the situation in Gibraltar? As several Government Departments are involved in this matter, would he say whether in the near future we may have a co-ordinated statement of the position and the steps which the Government propose to take to help Gibraltar to overcome the Spanish blockade?

Mr. Bowden: There has already been a long Written Answer—I think that it was on Monday of this week—but I appreciate that there is a good deal of interest by hon. Members, I hope on both sides of the House. I will ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary whether we may have a further statement.

Mr. William Clark: Can the Leader of the House say how soon we may have a debate on mortgage interest rates, so that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer may have an opportunity to withdraw his untimely attack on the building societies?

Mr. Bowden: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, but for an unhappy event last week, we should have had a debate on this last week, on an Opposition Motion. There will be further Supply Days and perhaps the usual channels will get together and see whether we may have a debate later.

Mr. Lipton: If the Opposition Motion on the aircraft industry, to be discussed next Tuesday, will be more or less equivalent to a Motion of censure on the Government, has my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House obtained any assurance from the Leader of the Opposition that he will seek to discourage any repetition of the vulgar and discreditable brawling in which Opposition members indulged so freely last Tuesday night?

Mr. Bowden: I hope that last Tuesday's effort was the last one of that sort which we shall see in the House. The House knows that I personally have for a long time resisted any idea of television cameras coming into this place; but if they had been here last night it would have had a salutary effect.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the


Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends intend to abstain next Tuesday, as they did last Tuesday?

Sir D. Renton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government yesterday made an unusually important statement about the development of the south-east of England and that he did so on a day when he does not normally answer Questions and without even giving notice to those Members whose constituencies were specifically mentioned in his statement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) pointed out at the time?
Would the Leader of the House make some arrangements whereby the House can be informed—or, at any rate, Members whose constituencies are involved can be informed—when such statements are to be made? Will he also consider arranging for an early debate on yesterday's statement?

Mr. Bowden: The practice has been, at least for as long as I have been here, for copies of all statements to be handed to the official Opposition, but never to individual Members. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend the suggestion that he may consider a debate later in the Session.

Mr. Rowland: Would my right hon. Friend consider providing some time next week for a special discussion on the Hawker-Siddeley redundancies, especially in view of your decision, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot have a debate on the situation today? I should like some assurance on this, because it is a matter of grave public importance and there is great doubt as to the company's calculations.

Mr. Bowden: It is not for me to rule on what is and what is not in order, but I should have thought that this would be completely in order on Tuesday's debate.

Mr. Prior: Will the Leader of the Opposition find time next week for the Government—[Laughter.] Will the Leader of the so-called Government find time next week to make an apology to hon. Members on this side of the House arising from the statement made this afternoon by his right hon. and learned

Friend the Home Secretary, which has resulted now in a completely different attitude to immigration by the Government, and for the scurrilous attacks which were made on hon. Members on this side, both during the election and in the period when the Bill was going through the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish the House would have some regard to my task. We have so much to do these days before we can get on with our business, that we must, in common decency, restrict business questions to business questions proper.

Mr. H. Hynd: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Motion No. 1 on the Order Paper, in the names of myself and 76 other hon. Members on both sides of the House, about railway superannuitants? Can he hold out any hope that there will be an early discussion on this subject?

[That this House notes with regret that the Pensions (Increase) Acts do not provide for railway superannuitants whose pensions fail to match rises in the cost of living, and urges Her Majesty's Government to rectify this anomaly in future legislation.]

Mr. Bowden: I have noted this Motion and the way it is kept alive from time to time, with a good deal of ingenuity on the part of hon. Members who are interested. This is really a matter for the British Transport Commission and the Railways Board. I will see what can be done about a debate.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Can the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have the long-promised debate on Government policy and the arts, which has often been referred to? When do the Government propose to publish their White Paper on their policy on the arts?

Mr. Bowden: I understand that the White Paper is getting nearer, and when we have seen it there may be an opportunity for a short debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: As this is the one day when back-bench Members have contact with the Leader of the House, may I pursue the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton)? We have to have other statements from


the Minister of Housing and Local Government which will affect constituencies, and although it is not reasonable for back-bench Members to have copies of the statements is it not reasonable for back-bench Members to have notice that their constituencies are likely to be mentioned in the statements?

Mr. Bowden: I think that there is probably something in this point where a particular constituency is mentioned. I will discuss this with my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that a few weeks ago it was reported that the Minister of Technology said that, although the Parliamentary machine is very good, it irritates because of its slowness? As it will be about a month before we can listen to the Minister of Technology answering Questions at the Dispatch Box, will the Leader of the House provide a special opportunity next week so as to show that we are capable of some fast bowling to the Minister if we can get at him?

Mr. Speaker: We cannot play cricket now.

Mr. Peter Emery: Would the Leader of the House have words with the Minister of Transport to see whether next week a statement can be made about the new line of the M.4? Because of certain action at the Ministry of Transport, there is considerable concern in Berkshire and a statement at the earliest possible moment is more than essential.

Mr. Bowden: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will note the question put by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Awdry: In view of the widespread uncertainty which exists, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government will bring forward the Bill for the setting up of the Lands Commission?

Mr. Bowden: During this Session.

Mr. Lubbock: I was not under the impression that the Leader of the House is responsible for the presence or absence of hon. Members of the Opposition, but since the Leader of the Opposition has put a question on this subject perhaps I

may ask him how it came about that last night there were only 123 Tories here out of a possible strength of 298?

Mr. Speaker: The multifarious duties of the Leader of the House do not include accounting for the whereabouts of hon. Members of the Opposition.

Sir C. Osborne: Would the Leader of the House consider arranging an emergency debate next week on the statement made by the Governor of the Bank of England, in the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, unless there is a serious cut in central Government and local government expenditure, we shall face a graver sterling crisis than that which we have just gone through? Will he find time urgently to debate that matter?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir, not next week.

Sir C. Osborne: Why not?

AWARDS TO INDUSTRY

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement.
With the approval of Her Majesty the Queen, Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce appropriate arrangements for making awards to industry which would provide means of recognising outstanding achievement by particular industrial units either in increasing exports or in technological innovation. These awards would be made by the Sovereign, on the advice of the Prime Minister. A scheme will be worked out under the guidance of a committee including representatives of industry.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that His Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, has consented to act as chairman of this committee.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are grateful to the Prime Minister for telling the House about this new idea. We are particularly happy that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is to be chairman of the committee. We will await with great interest the proposals which are to be made.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions? First, what exactly is an industrial unit? Does this


mean that the award will be made to firms, to departments within firms, or to individuals? Secondly, would the Prime Minister consider broadening the award a little? As I understand, it is to be for increasing exports or technological innovation; but firms which greatly improve their general efficiency, which perhaps achieve agreements by which all sorts of restrictive practice are given up, in return, say, for higher remuneration, have surely played a very important part indeed in improving the country's economy. Should not they, too, be eligible for these awards?

The Prime Minister: These will be matters for the committee which I mentioned to go into. While the emphasis will be on export achievement or technological advance, in appropriate circumstances the terms of reference might be taken a little wider.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, the House will understand that there are precedents for collective awards in the case of regiments and military units, and, of course, there is the famous case of Malta G.C. It was felt that it would be an incentive to still greater efforts in exports or technological advance if a firm, or, in the case of a very large firm, an individual factory or unit, could be honoured in this way in respect of meritorious performance.
I believe, also, that the knowledge that the Queen's award had been made in this way would help that firm in its further efforts to establish itself in export markets. The exact way in which this would be done and the form of the award are matters for further consideration by the committee which is to be presided over by the Duke of Edinburgh.

Mr. McInnes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether or not these awards mill be extended to firms who reduce prices and so bring down the cost of living?

The Prime Minister: I should require notice of that question. I am sure that the whole House would desire to do anything to encourage such public-spirited firms in every possible way.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will the Prime Minister consider extending this a ward to agricultural units? It might

be for signal services in the exporting of particularly good animals, which might be bulls to the Argentine or America for many thousands of pounds. It would be well worth it.

The Prime Minister: Without wanting to specify any particular export or any particular animal, it is well recognised that a great job is being done in that respect. Certainly, the intention to make awards to industry would include appropriate cases in agriculture and horticulture.

Mr. Allaun: May I welcome this suggestion and also ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not equally important to give recognition to the workers' side of the firms concerned?

The Prime Minister: It is intended in these cases to provide a joint recognition to all who have made the effort possible. In many cases, particularly where there is a new technological application, it could have been possible only by the co-operation of both sides in the new methods. Where there is success in creating a new export product, or developing a market, this, again, almost certainly would be a joint operation. There would be some cases where this might stimulate a more aggressive salesmanship than we have seen by some firms. Exactly as the flying of the National Coal Board flag at collieries where there has been a great effort is welcomed and accepted as a tribute to both management and workers at a particular colliery, so I hope that it will be the same here.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I cannot help but feel that we must get on.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE

Bill to make certain trade or business records admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings presented by Sir Frank Soskice, supported by Mr. Ross, Miss Alice Bacon, the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and Mr. George Thomas; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — MUSEUM OF LONDON BILL

[Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

4.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is another Measure which we have inherited from our predecessors and adopted. I hope that it is one which will receive a more universally friendly welcome than the one which I presented to the House yesterday. I feel that at least its legitimacy is less likely to be called in question. It is the product of an unusual union, but a fruitful one. It presents a unique example of co-operation between the central and local government authorities, the authorities concerned being the Corporation of the City of London, the London County Council and Her Majesty's Government.
The proposal, in short, is to amalgamate the London Museum and the City's Guildhall Museum and to house the joint collection in a new Museum of London to be built in the City. The scope of the museum will be the history and archaeology of London, and as a former London Member it is for me a very pleasurable duty to move the Second Reading.
I am sure that there are many hon. Members who are familiar with both these museums and who will also know under what heavy handicaps they are labouring. I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been interested for some time in the future of these museums and, in particular, of the London Museum, which is, of course, a responsibility of the central Government. My hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio, as far back as 25th January, 1946, raised the question of the future of this museum in an Adjournment debate in the House. He put forward then what he thought should be the goal for the future development of the museum, which I hope he feels is being realised today in this Bill.
My hon. Friend said the:

The ideal, as I see it, is a London Museum devoted to London, its history, its geography, its geology, its topography; illustrating the life of Londoners at various stages, providing a source book of human history, exhibiting in a vivid, popular and attractive form the skill and prowess of London's craftsmen of a bygone age, their metal work, their silver work, their woodwork, and so forth. London being the seat of Government, with its royal, political and ceremonial associations, such a Museum should also naturally contain exhibits illustrative of the social, political and ceremonial life of the capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1946; Vol. 418, c.513.]
The London Museum was founded shortly before the First World War, due largely to the imagination of the first Lord Harcourt, whose son is the present chairman of the trustees of the London Museum, and who, as chairman of the interim board of governors of the Museum of London, has himself played a notable part in bringing forward the scheme which is embodied in the Bill. In addition, the second Lord Esher played a notable part in the founding of the museum and his grandson is also a trustee of the museum.
It is a museum illustrating the life of the capital throughout the ages. At one time, as the House knows, it was housed in Lancaster House but when that was taken over exclusively for Government hospitality it moved into its present temporary home in Kensington Palace and the Government are under an obligation to provide a permanent home for that museum.
The City's Guildhall Museum was founded by the Court of Common Council in 1826 and originally it was an adjunct of the Library. It has grown over the years to provide an interesting and valuable collection of historic, artistic and, in particular, archaeological objects relating to London. Excavations connected with the rebuilding of London since the war have given great impetus to the development of that collection.
I believe that it has nearly doubled in size since the war. In addition, interest in it has grown greatly, especially following the discovery of the Mithras Temple on the Bucklersbury House site. The museum is at present housed, if one may so describe it, in the Royal Exchange, but the greater part of the collection has still to be left in store at the Guildhall and is waiting for an adequate home.
This very imaginative proposal for joining these two museums was announced in the House on 10th May, 1962, by my predecessor as Financial Secretary, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), who himself played an active part in bringing the scheme to fruition.
An interim board of governors was set up comprising six appointed by the Prime Minister, including the chairman, Lord Harcourt, six appointed by the City of London, and six by the London County Council, including my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). Architects were appointed, and they have drawn up a preliminary scheme which has been strongly recommended by the governors, accepted by the Common Council of the City of London and approved in principle by the Greater London Council.
The site of the proposed museum is an office tower block on the east side of the Barbican area in the City. It would provide for museum accommodation having an area of about 118,000 sq. ft., with a further 19,000 sq. ft. in reserve for future expansion. Owing to the siting, the plan has been caught, I fear, by the Government's restrictions on office building in the metropolitan area, and it will, therefore, have to be subject to the decisions which will have to be taken in due course about office building development in this part of the City.

Mr. Tom Driberg: Could my hon. and learned Friend say why a museum counts as an office in that context, and will he also say who the architects are and something about the architecture of the building?

Mr. MacDermot: It counts as an office for two reasons. First, as it will form part of an office block, I do not think that it would be practicable to erect the museum on its own without the rest of the block. Secondly, owing to the amount of office accommodation provided in the plans for the museum itself, it would itself rank for this purpose as an office and be subject to the restriction. If my hon. Friend wishes to see it, I can show him a key plan and site plan drawn up by the architects, Messrs. Powell and Moya, which, I am sure, he will find of interest.
A word now on the financial aspect, The agreement which is embodied in the Bill provides that the capital cost and the running costs will be shared equally between the three authorities, the Exchequer, the City of London and the Greater London Council. Only very approximate estimates can be made of the costs at this stage, but the estimates are contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill, showing that the Exchequer's third share of the capital cost will be about £575,000 and the running costs, including rent, a little under £100,000 a year. In addition, the agreement provides that the Exchequer shall bear the initial cost of the furniture and equipment, and there is provision in the Bill for a sum of up to £150,000 to be made available for that purpose.
The House will not wish me to go through the provisions of the Bill in great detail. It provides for setting up the tripartite board of governors on a permanent basis, with the constitution I outlined a moment ago. Two governors would retire each year and be eligible for reappointment. When constituted, the collections will be transferred to and vested in the board, and, in addition to the actual collections, the benefit of the valuable Joicey and Mackenzie Bell Trusts, which provide a useful purchasing fund to the London Museum, will be available to the new body. The Board will be responsible for acquiring the premises and for the exhibition and storage of the objects.
The powers given to the Board under the Bill include powers to transfer objects to and from other institutions, to loan objects, and to dispose of them, all of which provisions are modelled closely on the provisions which were considered carefully by the House and approved in connection with the British Museum Act.
The director and staff will be appointed by the governors and will be deemed to be employees, in effect, of the Corporation of the City of London, their pay and conditions being determined accordingly. The Bill provides, in effect, that the City of London superannuation scheme, subject to any necessary modifications, will apply to the staff.
One of the agreeable features of the preparation of this museum has been the


happy and wholehearted co-operation of the directors of the London Museum and the Guildhall Museum, who have been appointed, respectively, director and deputy-director designate of the new museum.
The plans for the museum are of real interest, and I should be glad to show them to any hon. Members who would like to see them. It will be the first new and modern museum to have been constructed in London at all, and one of the pleasing features of the designs is that, quite apart from the brightness of design of that part of the museum devoted to the display and exhibition of objects, the almost equally great, if not greater, part of the museum where the staff will be working will also have a brightness about it which is not usually to be found in the places where the staffs of museums have to work, which so often are dingy and dark premises. Hon. Members interested in museums will, I am sure, know all about that.
This venture is a new and fruitful partnership. It is one which will bring real benefit to both the taxpayers of the country and the ratepayers of London. It will be welcomed by all who love London, by Londoners themselves and all who share their pride and interest in London's past. We shall see arise in due course a museum which will be worthy of our capital city. The earliest date at which it could be opened would be the spring of 1970. It will be about three years, assuming the House approves the Bill, before building can begin, but, as I have said, all that must be subject to the present restrictions and controls necessary on office building in London.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman sits down—I gather that we were hearing something in the nature of a quiet peroration—could he answer three questions? In the Long Title there is a general reference to purposes. One most important purpose is this, is it not? Will it be part of the purpose not merely to amalgamate the existing collections, but to create a London museum—I stress the word "London"—the true purpose of which will be to—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There must be some limit to this. It is quite apparent that the Minister had sat down. With

respect, the hon. Gentleman cannot make a speech on the basis that the Minister had not concluded all the points which he might have dealt with. I hope that he may have the opportunity to catch the eye of the Chair later and make his speech during the course of the debate.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. William Roots: The Financial Secretary is right in his assumption that the House will welcome the creation of a worth-while London Museum, or Museum of London. It is recognised that the present London Museum, in Kensington Palace, must, of necessity, find other quarters. Those who have visited both the Guildhall Museum and that museum know how very interesting are the exhibits in both museums. The improvement of the premises and the creation of a centralised and improved museum must be welcomed by all of us.
There are, however, certain aspects of this which must at present give rise to a certain amount of thought. For my part, the estimate of the capital cost which has been given gives me cause for thought. If I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman right, it means that these new premises will cost nearly £2 million. I gather that from his reference to one-third of the cost being £575,000. The running costs are estimated at £300,000 per annum. When one considers what must be the vast increase in floor space and in facilities, one must inevitably wonder whether at this time a capital expenditure of that order is absolutely necessary, even to achieve a worth-while object.
I note that in Clause 4 there is a positive requirement that the museum must, for all time, be situated within the City of London, yet by the adoption of the meaning of the Bill, which is a public Bill though really of a private nature, all inquiry or discussion in terms of town planning is obviated and avoided. Though in no way impugning the good intentions of the potential trustees, I feel that it is unfortunate that for all time there is a requirement that the museum should be within the City of London. In fact, that part of the City where it is expected to be, the Barbican, is not, to the best of my experience, very easy of access. It is unfortunate that the opportunity cannot be taken for considering, for example, the South Bank, which has become a worth-while place for new buildings and


new development and is certainly a great deal easier of access.
By means of the Bill all consideration of other sites or other designs of building is removed from the ambit of public discussion. It must be admitted, when one takes into account, in addition, the difficulties which we know we are having in the City with congestion and the great limits on space, that such space as can be available might have been better devoted to other purposes, possibly even residential. It is, at any rate, worth discussing. I do not think that it can be said that this museum must be situated in the City. It may be the best place, but we have not been given any opportunity for full discussion of that. It is, for example, within my knowledge that the Guildhall Museum does not open on Sundays, whereas the museums which are run by the Government—certainly in Kensington—do so open. It seems to me important that there should be recognition of that sort of alteration which will be necessary when this change takes place.
Finally, I notice that, in Clause 15, there is a duty on the board of trustees to submit their estimated expenditure to the three bodies, and it will be paid if the estimate is approved. There does not seem to be any provision for what is to happen if the estimate is not approved, an eventuality which I think the Bill should consider. I return to my opening remark, that in terms of the concept of this as a London Museum and a worthwhile London Museum, I am sure that tile House will support the Bill to the full.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg: There are just a few questions which I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend in the course of some brief observations. Of course, I should like to re-emphasise that all of us, in general principle, welcome this project very warmly indeed: there can be no doubt of that.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) made an interesting point when he asked if it ought necessarily to be in the City of London for all time. It might have been a good idea to consider the South Bank, or some other site, but, apart from the South Bank, I am not sure that I can agree with him that the Barbican area is intrinsically unsuitable, either by reason

of congestion of traffic or because it is difficult of access, as he put it. After all, it is very near St. Paul's Cathedral, to which millions of visitors and others are able to find their way very easily. There is not much difficulty about finding St. Paul's and if one can find St. Paul's one can hardly miss seeing the Barbican scheme.
Secondly, on another point which he made, the Barbican scheme itself is now, to some limited extent perhaps, repopulating the City of London. It is one of the best aspects of the Barbican scheme that there are to be residential flats and accommodation on the site. The City of London in future will no longer be, at night-time or on Sundays, a dead city, as it is at present and has been in the last century or so.
Similarly, on the question of congestion of traffic, the Barbican scheme as one sees it now, in its half-finished state, seems to me to be so well-designed and laid out that there is probably less risk of traffic congestion here than in any other part of the City or indeed in other parts of London—wider two-way streets such as London Wall, ample car-parking space, and so on.
On these particular points I think that the site is probably about as good as one could have chosen. Whether in time to come—perhaps 50 to 100 years' hence—we shall necessarily want that particular site is another matter, but I suppose that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, can be amended by future Parliaments.
I strongly agree with the implication of one of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, that it is highly desirable that this museum should be open on Sundays. This, I take it, would be a matter for the board of governors, but, certainly, if it is open on Sundays, and if it is as lively and human a museum as it seems likely to be, it will do something to lighten the terrible, drab English Sunday which we shall be discussing on Monday week.
I have one or two questions for my hon. and learned Friend—quite simple ones, I think. I am not clear whether it is mentioned in the Bill or not that admission to this museum will be free. Is any charge to be imposed on any days? I hope myself that it will be free, particularly because, of its nature,


this museum will have a special educational value and, I imagine, will be the object of many school parties and outings of that kind.
This is purely a technicality of drafting, I suppose, but I do not quite understand the insertion which their Lordships in another place have made in the Bill—the bit right at the end of Clause 17 with a black line against it. This is explained, or partly explained, at the beginning of the Bill, but it reads:
Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds …
It seems to me that the whole Bill makes a considerable imposition on public funds, as my hon. and learned Friend remarked. The Treasury are contributing, and two other public bodies are contributing. I do not understand that apparently contradictory statement. Perhaps it could be explained.
Finally, I ventured to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend to ask him why a museum counted as an office for the purposes of the order restricting office building, and he explained that the museum is part of a larger office block. I do not know to what extent this office block is an integrated whole—perhaps when we have seen the plans we shall understand better—or whether it would be possible to start building this part of the block before building the offices generally; or even whether it would be possible to make a special exception to the restriction on office buildings in favour of the Museum of London, either by Amendment to the Bill at a later stage or by administrative action of some sort.
In general, I join with other Members in welcoming this project most warmly.

4.42 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I wish to speak on the Bill for a few minutes simply because when I held the Minister's present office I was concerned with the negotiations which have led to this Bill appearing before Parliament. I therefore warmly welcome the fact that we have the Bill before us. It was in the summer of 1961, just before the July economic measures of that year, that we were engaged in the final stages of the negotiations between the Treasury, the City of London and what was then the London County Council on the subject of the Bill.
As Financial Secretary, I was always very keen that we should achieve a new combined London and City Museum. The London Museum was admirably managed, I agree, by its board. I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the late Lord Esher, who always took the most enormous amount of interest in the London Museum, and I also pay tribute to the present Lord Harcourt, who played a most valuable part and was of the greatest assistance to me in carrying out these negotiations. But it had always seemed absurd to me that we had the London Museum not ideally housed in Kensington Palace, quite some way from the centre of London, and then, completely, separate, the Guildhall Museum, which very few people saw.
Surely, looking over our national history, we must agree that London should be viewed as a whole. Certainly, the City of London has played a great part in the history of the nation. After all, it is about 80 years since the formation of the London County Council and since London became an administrative county. It seemed to me that the time had come for a combined City and London Museum.
One of the points which arose naturally and which was of special concern to the Treasury Ministers was the sharing of expenditure. Here, I am sure quite rightly, the Government have been reasonably generous. The Treasury is to pay more than one-third of the total capital cost, when the furniture is added to the Treasury's share of the cost of the building, and the taxpayer will pay a full one-third of the running costs of this Museum. That is a settlement which will be widely welcomed in the country.
May I say a word or two on the details? As I see it, this museum was intended to cover everything connected with the history of the City and the county but it is not intended primarily to be an artistic museum as such. It will be concerned primarily with the history of London, and this covers a wide field, including historical episodes, the costumes of various periods, buildings and many other projects.
I agree with the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) in hoping that the museum will be open on a Sunday. I think that I also agree with him about the site. The House should be told


frankly that I very much doubt whether we could have carried through these quite tricky negotiations but for the fact that this admirable site was available in the City. A combined London and City Museum to be located on the South Bank would have been a very much more tricky project to negotiate, and I doubt whether we should have succeeded.
I ought to add a word of particular thanks to the Clerks both of the London County Council and of the Court of Common Council, who were particularly helpful in getting us over what at one stage were quite difficult negotiations. I am sure that it would have been much harder had not this admirable site existed in the Barbican. I agree with the hon. Member for Barking that the site is within easy reach of other historic buildings which other people come to visit.
May I add two rather more general comments which arise on the Bill? First, I am rather sorry that we have so little enthusiasm among hon. Members for a Bill about a museum. My belief is that museums play, or should play, an important part in our national cultural life but that they have not played as large a part since the war as we should have liked to see. In Britain, there has been a great upsurge of enthusiasm both for fine arts and for practical arts, and there has been a great upsurge of enthusiasm for music. On the whole, museums have tended to come off rather less well, and this is why, when I was Financial Secretary, I tried to take an interest in the museums within the purview of the Treasury. I was responsible for the new west wing of the Welsh Museum at Cardiff, and I was very pleased to get the Imperial War Museum on to a building programme, which was overdue. I am particularly pleased about the City of London Museum.
Museums have an important part to play educationally, not just from the point of view of young people being taken round dutifully and admiring exhibits of historic interest, but also from the point of view of encouraging the exercise of the imagination. A well-displayed museum can play a great part in encouraging the historical imagination, and in getting young people to think what it would have been like to live in those times and to realise the creative aspect of the study of history and how it has enabled us

to put things into shape in new and exciting ways.
I am, therefore, sure that we are right in the House to take an interest in the development of the museum services both in national museums and in local museums. This is a museum which in a sense will be both a national and a local museum.
It seems to have been forgotten that the Robbins Committee made a recommendation that there should be a Minister of Arts and Sciences, in effect to take over all the present work of the Treasury as a spending Department in this connection. The Robbins Committee made a recommendation that this Ministry should take over responsibility for the universities and colleges of advanced technology and all the work of the Treasury in connection with arts and museums. The previous Government, I think rightly, did not accept that recommendation about universities, and I welcome the fact, personally, that the present Government have carried the matter one stage further still and that we are to have a single Permanent Secretary in the Department of Education and Science. But possibly they have rather overlooked that we have not either dealt with or made any change in the arrangements for museums and the arts. I do not believe that there is any great urgency to alter our present arrangements.

Mr. Driberg: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is forgetting my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works, who has a special responsibility for the arts. We all hope that the Treasury will allow her to spend as much as she wants to.

Sir E. Boyle: And I wish good luck to her, but I was particularly thinking about the museums which are the responsibility of particular Government Departments. I am not absolutely clear about the full scope of the Parliamentary Secretary's responsibilities. Perhaps the Arts Council now comes within her purview. Nevertheless, while the present arrangements may be untidy, they appear to work reasonably well.
I was always grateful, when at the Ministry of Education, that we had there the interests of the Science Museum and


the Victoria and Albert, probably two of the finest collections of applied art in the world. I believe that the Bill shows that the Treasury has not neglected its duties in regard to a number of national museums.
The Treasury handled this matter and these negotiations as well as any other Department could have done and, while I recognise the anomaly of the Treasury as a spending Department and the rather untidy way our present arrangements are organised for museums, none the less, in fairness, we should remember that the Treasury has done some valuable work here and that the Bill reflects great credit on all those who were responsible for carrying out these arrangements.
With those words, I warmly welcome the Bill and hope, with considerable optimism, that we will get a really strong board of governors. I hope that the Prime Minister will see that he chooses six strong governors, for this is not a job for anybody. It is a task on which a considerable amount of time and care must be spent. I hope that the museum will be of real value to generations of children and other interested visitors.

4.52 p.m.

Mrs. Freda Corbet: As has been said, I was appointed to the interim board of governors. We have been working on this scheme for about two years and this is the moment we have been looking forward to; the time when the board will be given power to enable it to be no longer interim.
It should be remembered that the London County Council is still in existence. It will be so until 31st March and, for the moment, the L.C.C. has appointed its representatives—and it is in that capacity that I have served on the board. At the outset of the debate I thought that I would have to speak for a considerable time, but already, particularly in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, a great deal of the information which I intended to impart has already been given. There is, therefore, not much I need add.
My hon. and learned Friend spoke of the site, in the City, at the Barbican. There are already about a dozen office

blocks there and I understand that this will be the final block. The Museum Committee, for a considerable time, hoped that it would be given all the room there, although it was finally realised that that was not likely to happen. All hon. Members are aware of the temptation that any body, such as the Museum Committee, has to ask for every inch of space available, particularly when it is realised that this building must be fit for the purposes for which it is being conceived. It must be long-lasting and attractive. That is what this building will be.
Hon. Members who accept the invitation of my hon. and learned Friend to look at the plans will be immensely pleased to see the wide range of provision that is being made there, particularly for visiting school parties. It will not be a question of children being obliged to wander round looking at the various items on display. I can assure hon. Members that forcing children to look round museums is no longer necessary. They are only too happy to study the exhibits and nowadays parties from schools regularly make visits to our museums. For these visits, adequate provision must be made. Provision is being made par excellence in this fine building.
Apart from a museum, it will be quite a concourse. There will be a restaurant and ancillary amenities. Such things are essential in modern buildings. The museum should make a considerable contribution to the City. It will be situated in the very heart of the City, at the point where portions of London Wall are visible just underground and where the old gates and parts of ancient company buildings and churches are still visible. There can be no doubt that this is the site for the museum.
There would have been no room on the South Bank for it. Whenever a building of this sort is suggested people say, "Put it on the South Bank". Everything has gone to the South Bank. Everything that could go there is there. The City is the place for this museum, particularly since the City was keen on its being placed there. After all, the City is contributing greatly to the museum and there can be no doubt that the City—the L.C.C., soon to become the Greater London Council—has collaborated wonderfully on this venture.
This scheme has proceeded with the utmost amicability among the three partners concerned and I hope that I will live to see other such schemes concluded with such pleasantness and determination. Each partner has shouldered its share of the burden willingly and I commend this project to the House.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I am happy to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) in welcoming the Bill. Perhaps I can find more enthusiasm for it than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots). I would not want to be unduly unkind to my hon. and learned Friend, but I think that some of the fusty, dusty South Kensington Museum atmosphere must have rubbed off on to him, perhaps because he was speaking in a Treasury capacity rather than in an arts capacity, in which I speak.
I welcomed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), because although it was from the Treasury that he launched this great scheme he is an example of a Treasury Minister who has just the right qualification to deal with a matter of this sort. I echo his sentiments about the place of museums in the community, and I shall have more to say about that.
Although the Financial Secretary, when introducing the Bill, showed a certain amount of enthusiasm for the project, this must be the type of subject not entirely familiar to him. He is, however, a lawyer of distinction and is used to picking up a brief and dealing with it in an intelligent fashion. On this occasion he dealt with the subject fairly effectively, but I cannot pass to the Bill directly without commenting on some of the things said about responsibilities for museums and the arts, because it is in the arts field that museums are best operative.
We are faced with a strangely ironical slate of affairs, for we have unlimited time, the rest of the day, to discuss this Measure, whereas we were told during business questions this afternoon, by the Leader of the House, that we might, if we are lucky, get a short debate on a White Paper on the arts some time in the near future. I would be out of order

in pursuing this matter further, but I hope that the Government will remember that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in this subject. If we are to have a satisfactory debate, more than a short one will be necessary. Having been allowed to make these general observations, I turn to the provisions of the Bill.
The Bill is another example of the virtues of the hereditary principle, inasmuch as the Government have inherited it from their predecessors, though I am glad that they are as enthusiastic about it as we are. It must be right to have this Museum of London in the City of London, and I cannot follow my hon. and learned Friend in suggesting that it should be put, together with a number of other buildings not particularly closely related, on the South Bank.
The history of the City of London is something that is part of Britain and something that people from all over the world will come to study. They have been deprived of much of the benefit of that, because there has not been an adequate museum of London in which all the long history of the City can be displayed. Only last week I was down in the City of London—it was one of those days when the House was not sitting—to see a clockmaker. I have a clock made at Clerkenwell, in the City of London. The firm of watchmakers which made it is at the same address as it was in 1740, when the clock was made. Yet I found that much of the records of this famous firm had been thrown away during the war, and a lot of interesting old machinery was threatened with destruction because there was nowhere to put it.
The Museum of London in the City of London would be able to take care of such things, so that all the activities of the past could be remembered, and much learned from them at the present time—not just the history of manufactures, but architectural history, archæology, perhaps even paintings and engravings of historical events in the City of London. When finally constituted under the Bill the Museum of London can be a place where in a very short time one can see displayed all the history of the City of London over very many hundreds of years. That has not been possible


before, but will be possible when this project has come to full fruition.
Much has been learned from the British Museum Act, a Measure designed to fit the British Museum better to the needs of modern times. I am sorry to hear from the Financial Secretary that this project of the Museum of London may be held up because of the Government's policy of curtailing office building. This is not the only difficulty in which the Government will find themselves because of the introduction of that sweeping Measure. It would be wrong for me to debate that subject now, but I hope that this will just be another example to lend force to the argument that that is a somewhat ill-considered provision. I hope that it will be of a temporary nature, because it does not cure the evils which the Government have alleged exists and has created all sorts of other evils in its wake.
I hope that the Government will have the imagination to appoint young people as some members of the board of governors. I should like to know what is the average age of the governors now functioning—I hope that I describe them in the right terms. Although, in my view, the average age of the trustees of the British Museum was not reduced enough, it was significantly reduced by the introduction of the British Museum Act.
I hope that the Prime Minister, in appointing or reappointing his representatives, will at least take note of the suggestion that young people should serve because, as my right hon. Friend has said, a museum is of great interest not just to school children looking for somewhere to go on a rainy afternoon, but to students, young people at universities—people perhaps even younger than that—and it is difficult to see how a board of governors composed very largely of middle-aged or elderly men, however knowledgeable they may be about the exhibits in the museum, can really be in touch with the younger generation which will, we hope, enjoy the facilities offered.
There are many points of detail to which I should like to refer, but there will no doubt be opportunities to do that later. The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) spoke about the financial

provisions of the Bill, and I should like to ask a question I have asked before on similar measures, and that is whether it will be possible for the governors to charge admission either for the museum or for any special exhibition they may care to organise within the museum.
I know that there is a difference between the parties, perhaps even within my own party, on the subject of charges—indeed, I see that my right hon. Friend is laughing at that reference, and I can remember crossing swords with him on the subject during the passage of the Public Libraries and Museums Bill in the last Parliament. The important point is that whatever the differences of opinion may be, it would surely be wrong to have an Act preventing a museum from making a charge on all occasions. There might be an occasion when it would be able to put on a special feature only if it could recoup some of the costs of doing so. In this modern age, which is very different from that in which many of our museums started—the last century—a modest charge is surely acceptable to most people—

Mr. Driberg: I think that the board of governors, or whoever runs the museum, will be able to do that under Clause 8. It says:
… (whether in return for payment or not) …

Mr. Cooke: I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, but I should like to have the Financial Secretary's assurance that those words mean what his hon. Friend thinks they mean. We have had difficulties about that sort of thing in the past.
I would echo my right hon. Friend's sentiments about museums, and this museum, in particular—this new project for which I have great enthusiasm, and for which many of my hon. Friends have great enthusiasm. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South will have much greater enthusiasm by the time we have finished, despite the cost. I hope that this project will be a success, and that it can be a great and imaginative example to all those planning museums at this present time. In my own city, a scheme of about this size is in process of being designed.
I think that we can lead the country, and the world, with this Museum of London. In view of the enthusiasm that the Financial Secretary has shown for the project, I hope that he will be able to persuade some of his right hon. Friends to remove the harsh restriction on office building that has caught this very worthy project, and that it will not be long before we see the Museum of London as a reality in the City of London.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. MacDermot: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I speak again to reply briefly to some of the questions which have been asked during this debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Mr. Roots) recoiled with proper horror at the capital cost of erecting the building. It is comforting for a Treasury Minister to find other hon. Members sharing concern in these matters. We are usually urged by everyone to spend so much money that is most encouraging to find someone coming to our support in our anxiety to save money. This reflects the heavy capital cost of building in the City, but I feel satisfied, and I think that my predecessors did, that the public will be getting good value for money even though it may seem to be a lot of money.
The hon. and learned Member also asked whether it was necessary for the museum to be in the City, and if that needed to be prescribed in the Bill. Other hon. Members spoke on that point. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) made clear, at this stage it has not been for us to reopen that question. It is basic to the agreement between the authorities, I think it fair to acknowledge that it was reasonable for the Corporation of the City of London to take the view—quite apart from the fact that it was offering a site—that if it surrendered its own Guildhall Museum it should stipulate that the site of the new museum should be in the City.
I agree with hon. Members that there are good reasons why it should be in the City for the sake of the better balance of life in the redeveloped City and also because, while people will want to come to the museum from the west, there will be many children and others who wish to come to it from the east. I am sure

they will welcome its siting in the City. Quite apart from its propinquity to St. Paul's, the museum should not be difficult to find. I have not yet dared to inform the House that the contemplated tower office block will rise to a height of 200 ft., so it should be a fairly visible landmark.

Mr. Driberg: Has it been approved by the Royal Fine Art Commission?

Mr. MacDermot: I do not know the answer to that, but I shall find out and let my hon. Friend know.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) asked whether the museum would be open on Sundays and whether admission would be free. Those are matters within the province of the governors to decide. I have little doubt that they will wish to make arrangements to ensure that the museum is open on Sundays. The position about charging is that the Bill is so drawn that they would be empowered to charge for entry. This, again, will be a matter for decision by the governors, but I think it is current practice, certainly in the national museums, not to charge for admission. It is a matter on which opinions differ, and differ strongly, but I hope the governors will be able to make the museum available for free admission.
My hon. Friend raised a somewhat technical point of apparent contradiction in the Bill which I would rather not try to answer now "off the cuff". I will write in answer to that point.
My hon. Friend also asked, as a number of other hon. Members did, what the effect would be of restriction on building. No special exemption can be made for this building, but that does not mean that permission cannot be given for its construction. It means that it is subject to a licensing procedure and a case must be made for it. He asked whether it might be possible to erect only the part of the building which constitutes the museum. The difficulty there would be one of cost. That part of the building being at the base will involve all the very expensive excavation and foundation work, the building of subterranean car parks, and so forth. It would not be an economic proposition to incur all that cost merely for the erection of the museum.
The right hon. Member for Handsworth spoke in support of generosity by the Treasury. I suppose that one can


look only to a former Treasury Minister to give that kind of praise to the Treasury. I confess that when I first studied the proposals I, also, was impressed with the generosity of some of the other authorities. London County Council acted very generously in assuming responsibility in this matter. It could easily have washed its hands of it and have said, "We are not responsible for the museums of London or for the Guildhall Museum. This is something you must arrange with the City of London," but it did not do that; it came in on a third share basis.
The Corporation of the City of London is taking over on an equal basis, although its museum is a smaller one than the London Museum. I was glad that the right hon. Member, who has such great experience of this matter, was able to inform the House of the part which so many persons and authorities have played in helping to bring this scheme to fruition. I was glad also to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) confirming what was said by the right hon. Member.
I was asked about the average age of the present members of the interim board. I cannot enlighten the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) about that, but I am sure that the observations he made about persons who would be suitable as members of the board will be listened to by all those responsible for making the appointments. I hope that his Clerkenwell clockmaker will be put in touch with the new museum, if he is not already in touch with the authorities. The museum is anxious that it should be a proper museum of the crafts and history of London.
Hon. Members will have observed that there is no definition in the Bill as such of what the scope of the museum is to be. I think that that is wise. We tend to do things rather better in an empirical fashion in this country. This is a beginning by the fusion of two existing museums and the board is empowered to

add to that collection at its discretion. I do not think anything would be gained by trying to confine the members of the board to a narrow commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Ordered,
That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection:

Ordered,
That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

(a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the seventh day after this day, and
(b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,

being Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:

Ordered,
That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee:

Ordered,
That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the evidence taken before them:

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Orders of the Day — MUSEUM OF LONDON [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees).

[Sir SAMUEL STOREY in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a Board of Governors of the Museum of London; to transfer to them the collections of the London Museum and of the Guildhall Museum and the benefit of certain funds; to define the functions of that Board, and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(a) of grants by the Treasury to the said Board not exceeding in the aggregate £150,000 in respect of the cost of furnishing and equipping premises in which collections vested in that Board are or are to be, housed; and
(b) of sums required for the making of payments by the Treasury to the Corporation of the City of London in respect of amounts from time to time expended by the said Corporation either in defraying expenditure incurred by the said Board, or in making payments to that Board in respect of expenditure incurred or to be incurred by that Board.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(PROHIBITION ON DEPOSITING OF SOLID REFUSE IN CERTAIN CASES.)

The prohibition imposed subject to certain exceptions by section 22 of the principal Act on the depositing of solid refuse from a mine or quarry so that it falls or is carried into a stream shall be extended to include any solid refuse.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time
I would suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 16, in Schedule 3, page 17, leave out lines 15 and 16, and insert:

In subsection (1) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(c) if he deposits on any land any solid refuse so that it falls or is carried into a stream";
In subsection (4) for the words from "(which consent" to "quarry" there shall be substituted the words "any solid refuse".
The new Clause arises from an undertaking I gave in Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend as a consequence of an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry). In view of the hon. Member's earnest speech and an eloquent plea by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), I agreed to look at the matter more closely and see whether we could find a better way of improving the Bill.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West moved an Amendment to Section 22 of the 1951 Act—a very ingenious Amendment, because the Section was designed for an entirely different purpose—to make it an offence to deposit on any land any solid refuse, and not only the solid refuse of a mine or quarry, so that it falls or is carried into a stream. Section 22(4) provides, however, that the solid refuse of a mine or quarry may be deposited with the consent of the river purification authority, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State—I emphasise this—if no other site for the deposit is reasonably practicable and all reasonably practicable steps are taken to prevent refuse entering the stream. It was on that main point, which was omitted from the Amendment, however ingeniously contrived, that it was difficult for the Government to look at it with favour in Committee.
However, I believe that in moving the new Clause we have picked up that saving in Section 22(4). The new Clause and the consequential Amendment to the Third Schedule extending the offence to deposits on any land of any solid refuse are designed to meet the criticism. They will prohibit the depositing of solid refuse—my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire gave instances such as bedding, loads of rotten potatoes and sawdust—on the banks of streams in the hope that they will be swept away, but they will permit legitimate deposits for land reclamation and other public purposes. That is the saving grace of the new provision.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: I wish to express appreciation of the Under-Secretary's moving the new Clause in relation to an Amendment which I proposed earlier. At that time and now the hon. Gentleman has made reference to my ingenuity in adapting Section 22. On that previous occasion the hon. Gentleman referred to very great difficulties which he encountered in accepting the Amendment. It is remarkable how, after thought, all those difficulties and the need for ingenuity have faded away. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on very much more felicitous wording than I originally proposed, and I have very great pleasure in supporting the new Clause.

Mr. William Baxter: I participated in the discussions in Committee, and would associate myself with the remarks which have been made. Like the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) I congratulate my hon. Friend on his wisdom on this occasion, and hope that this will continue in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(SAVING FOR CERTAIN ACTS DONE FOR SCIENTIFIC ETC. PURPOSES WITH CONSENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE OR IN CERTAIN CASES OF DISTRICT BOARD.)

(1) In section 9 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951 (saving for certain acts which would otherwise be offences) for the words "where such act relates to salmon" there shall be substituted the words "in the case of an act which relates to salmon and which is not an act specified in paragraph (a) or (b) of section 4 of this Act, with the previous permission in writing".

(2) In section 22(6) of the principal Act at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(e) any act which, by virtue of section 9 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, is not a contravention of either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of section 4 of the said Act (which paragraphs prohibit the use of any explosive substance, and of poison or other noxious substance for the taking or destroying of fish).—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The new Clause is tabled in response to a promise that I made in Committee. The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), moved an Amendment in an endeavour to fill a lacuna in the position arising from the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act. 1951.
As I pointed out at the time—the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn accepted it—the Amendment was not completely intact in that it failed to protect the statutory interests of river purification authorities. Naturally, we have discussed the matter with representatives of the district fishery boards concerned, and as a consequence I am able to move the new Clause. It extends Section 22 of the 1951 Act to provide that acts done for scientific and suchlike purposes by virtue of Section 9 of the 1951 Fisheries Act and which are not contraventions of the provisions of Section 4(a) or 4(b) of that Act, which prohibits the use of any explosive substance or any poison or other noxious substance with intent to take or destroy fish, will not constitute offences under Section 22 of the Rivers Act, which makes it an offence to put poisonous, noxious or polluting matter into streams. Before giving any consent the Secretary of State would, of course, consult both the river purification authority and the district fishery board.
The new Clause, goes a little further, and necessarily so, to protect the interests of river purification authorities, as it now limits the consent of the district board to acts done for scientific purposes, in so far as they relate to salmon, to an offence under Section 4(c) of the Fisheries Act, such as the use of electrical devices, but not under Section 22 of the Rivers Act. We think, in all modesty, that we have met the point put forward in Committee and, looking at the matter from many points of view, it seems now to be adequately arranged.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On this Clause I also thank the Government. The hon. Member said


that he would put down an Amendment in, order to carry out the purpose which we described in Committee and, as far as I can see, this Clause will do so. I entirely accept that, with the expert knowledge available to him, he has been able to draft something which was better than the Amendment we moved in Committee. Indeed, the provision has become a new Clause which will be quite a substantial amendment to the Bill.
I realise that quite a lot may depend upon the interpretation of the word "scientific" but, from what the hon. Gentleman said, I think that it covers the case which I mentioned in Committee where it might be necessary to introduce poison into a very restricted area of a burn as part of the process of increasing fisheries since the poison would simply eliminate enemies of the young fish.
This was permitted under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act, 1951, and there appeared to be an inconsistency between the provisions in that Act and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to do away with that inconsistency.
The Clause, therefore, should be helpful to those concerned with preserving, and promoting one of our valuable resources—river fisheries. Those concerned are, indeed, more anxious than perhaps any other persons in Scotland to keep our rivers clean.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Clause 1.—(RIVER PURIFICATION AUTHORITY'S CONSENT FOR CERTAIN DISCHARGES OF EFFLUENT.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, to leave out lines 39 to 43.
Perhaps it would be convenient to consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 17.
They are all drafting Amendments. Those hon. Members who had the honour of serving in Committee on this Bill and those who have read the proceedings will recollect that we had an important and involved debate about the recasting of Clause 9.
By the deletion of subsection (7) of Clause 1 and subsection (1) of Clause 7 on penalties—in view of Clause 9 which deals with penalties—we are removing the reference to a person guilty of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the 1951 Act because offences are now dealt with comprehensively in Clause 9, which penalises a person guilty of a contravention of Clause 1. The other two Amendments are both drafting Amendments to deal with the recasting of Clause 9.
The Government invited the Committee to give an idea of whether we should look at the penalties in relation to their level and to the comprehensive nature of those penalties. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) initiated the discussion. The Government decided not to take a rigid attitude but rather to be guided by the Committee. As a consequence, we have had no criticisms of our decisions in this case. We are certainly unaware of any interest regarding the increase in penalties as taking them to an unfair level, having regard to the English legislation. Nor have we heard a contrary view.
I think that the House will agree that we have done a good job with Clause 9 and will accept the Amendments consequential on the change.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): I must point out to the House that the grouping of Amendments is a matter for the Chair, but as these are drafting Amendments I have no objection to the grouping suggested by the Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Hendry: I welcome this grouping, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, because we have to regard these Amendments as a group, otherwise they are unintelligible. I initiated the discussion about penalties in the first instance but the hon. Gentleman is being unduly modest in saying that these are drafting Amendments because, although that may be strictly true, they improve the Bill enormously, for their effect is to produce suitable penalties for continuing offences, which was an omission from the Bill as originally drafted. I have the greatest confidence in recommending the Amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 2, leave out from "conditions," to the end of line 3.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 16, to leave out "fourteen" and to insert "twenty".
We have put down this Amendment to give the Government an opportunity for second thoughts about the question discussed at some length in Committee. We thought it reasonable that the Government should have time to look again at this because, as I recognise, this Bill came up quickly after the beginning of the Session and we went into Committee on it commendably soon after that. Thus, when we raised this matter in Committee, the Government had not had all the time they might have had to consider the repercussions.
We pointed out that it was possible to study the experience under the equivalent measure for England and Wales, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961. Although at the time I was able to supply the Under-Secretary of State with relevant dates, I recognised that we would have to consider the matter within the space of an hour or two in Committee and that more time should be devoted to it. We have now given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to think again.
Under the 1961 Act, applying to England and Wales, the interval between the passing of the Act and the appointed day was written in as 14 months, the wording being
… not less than fourteen months …
But in the execution of the Act the appointed day was fixed by the Minister at 23 months after the Act received the Royal Assent. Although the figure in the English legislation was 14 months, the actual interval was 23 months.
We quite understand that in following the lines of the English legislation, whose principles were good and which we supported and which we therefore support in this Bill, the same interval has been written in, but we could benefit from the experience of three years of the English equivalent legislation and appreciate that 14 months in rather a short time and that 20 months would be a better period.
All those bodies and persons likely to be affected by the Bill who have been

in touch with hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House appear to have had one feeling in common about the Bill, which was an anxiety that they would not be allowed enough time to study some of the technical problems connected with the prevention of pollution and to take the necessary action. Notable among these have been representatives of Scottish industry, some of the particular industries affected, and the farmers. It is because of this anxiety that we think that the time of 20 months should be written into the Bill. In the light of the experience in England and Wales, this is clearly not a great deal to ask, for it is less than the time in fact taken in England and Wales. This change would help to allay the fears of those who are to be affected and it would harness the good will towards the principles of the Bill and keeping our rivers clean.
I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment, but that, even if they are not, for some reason which I cannot now imagine, in the event they will not unnecessarily hustle those concerned and that it will still be within their discretion to appoint a day. We hope that the Government of the time will make sure that the interval is chosen with discretion and good judgment consistent with the anxieties and the need to go ahead with these purification measures and the importance of obtaining the co-operation of those whose co-operation is necessary to make the Bill work. Nothing will be gained as a net result if by trying to make the date too early the Government lose the support of some of the bodies and firms and others whose task it will be to carry out the provisions of the Bill. For that reason, we hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: In Committee we discussed this matter at length and perhaps in a somewhat heated atmosphere owing to some extraneous matter which was introduced by some hon. Members, but I hope that we have now all had time to reflect. I have had time to reflect and to meet a number of the people alleged to be concerned. I can only tell the House that it has not been our experience that those said to be anxious about this time and wanting to change


the period from 14 to 20 months were so concerned. They accepted our assurances.
5.45 p.m.
The argument is marginal and I seem to have great difficulty—it is no doubt entirely my fault—explaining what the position is. If the Government are in error in suggesting 14 months and we have exactly the experience of England and Wales, no harm will be done, because we shall have power to take as long as we like. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right to say that no Government would proceed to appoint a day without having tied up all the regulations and being confident that the discharges could be controlled and that all the purification boards were aware of what kind of information about discharges should be required. No Government would proceed hastily and sacrifice the good will of those concerned.
However, if the Government are wrong in trying to do this in 14 months, all we will have said is that we should make the appointed day in not less than 14 months, so that it follows that we can take as long as is necessary. However, if the Opposition are wrong—and I am reminded of the words of Oliver Cromwell:
… in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
in assuming that it will take the Scottish Office as long as it took in England, we may find ourselves twiddling our thumbs for six months or more. I have no doubt that there are those in another place who might try to make the time 23 or 24 months, so that we might be wasting more than six months, but even under this Amendment it would be six months.
The English had the difficulty of not having any model set of rules to follow. We have; we have the English rules. We have the experience of having seen those rules in action and knowing what difficulties have arisen in operating them. Hon. Members know from their own experience that officials would not tell Ministers that they could do a job if we were over-estimating their capacity to do it speedily. Officials are by nature anxious to do a job well and efficiently and always to allow themselves a margin of time in which to do it.
Therefore, if the advice of our admirable officials is that they will be able to persuade the interests concerned within the time of 14 months, there is no reason why the Government should accept the Amendment, which would then mean sitting for six months doing nothing. If the Government are wrong in this marginal argument, then they can extend the time to 20 or 23 months or even to three or four years if we take the argument to absurdity. If the Opposition are wrong, we would only delay the operation of the Bill unnecessarily for six months.
While I do not want to go over the ground too harshly, we believe that a great deal of time has been wasted by not putting through the effective provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. We do not wish to be impeded by that. I remind the House that the Government intend to follow this legislation, as quickly as possible within the pledge which I gave in Committee on behalf of my right hon. Friend, with legislation implementing the Hill Watson Report and the sewerage code. We are most anxious to press ahead with this and hon. Members opposite are embarrassing us unduly by pressing this Amendment on us. Even if they are right, it does no good to accept the Amendment, and in all modety we submit that the Government have been better advised than they.

Mr. Michael Noble (Argyle): We certainly do not want to embarrass the Under-Secretary of State by pressing something on which he has given assurances in talking to the various interests concerned. We are satisfied with the assurances which he was able to give them.
I could not help agreeing with the hon. Gentleman when he spoke about the good sense of the Department's officers, who are generally cautious in deciding the speed at which things should be done. I wonder whether some officials in other Departments share that view at this moment. But that is a side issue. I am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's assurance that this matter will be dealt with carefully and that the people concerned accept the assurances which he gave them.

Mr. G. Campbell: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7.—(OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISCHARGES AND NEW OUTLETS.)

Amendment made: In page 7, leave out lines 26 to 33.—[Mr. Ross.]

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 37, to leave out "direct" and insert "by order prescribe".
This is a drafting Amendment. Section 28(7) of the 1951 Act provides that every river purification authority shall maintain a register, containing such particulars as the Secretary of State may by Order prescribe, of consents which have been granted under the Section. Clause 7(2), however, refers to inclusion in this register of such particulars as the Secretary of State may direct. We feel that it would be inconsistent to provide by Order for particulars in the register but for directions under the Bill, and the Amendment brings the Clause into line with Section 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(APPLICATION OF ACT TO TIDAL WATERS.)

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 9, line 1, to leave out from "order" to "shall" in line 2, and insert:
in the like manner as these provisions may be applied to controlled waters under the last foregoing subsection; and thereupon those waters shall become controlled waters within the meaning of this section, and their seaward limits".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that we may also consider Amendment No. 9, in Clause 12, page 13.

Dr. Mabon: I am grateful, Dr. King.
These are clarifying Amendments. Subsection (3) of Clause 8 on tidal waters was intended to enable the Secretary of State to direct by order that the provisions of the Bill, and Section 28 of the 1951 Act which controls new outlets and new discharges, could be applied to other tidal waters and that these additional tidal waters thereupon became "controlled waters" and were incorporated in the Second Schedule of the

Bill. It was also intended, however, that the Secretary of State could, by order, direct that the provisions of Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill, which control existing discharges, could be applied to such additional controlled waters as well as to the tidal waters specified in the Second Schedule. The Clause as drafted, however, does not empower the Secretary of State to apply Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill to these additional controlled waters. This power is necessary in respect of all controlled waters, and the Amendment seeks to rectify the omission.
The Amendment to Clause 12, the effect of which is to delete the reference to subsection (2) of Clause 8, is consequential. The provisions of the 1951 Act specified should be applicable to the whole Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 12.—(APPLICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACT TO DISCHARGES TO STREAMS AND TIDAL WATERS.)

Amendment made: In page 13, leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert:
(b) in relation to controlled waters within the meaning of section 8 of this Act as they apply in relation to a stream.—[Dr. Dickson Mabond.]

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 13, line 19, at the end to insert:
(e) section 25—byelaws
(f) section 26—supplementary provisions with regard to byelaws.
This Amendment rectifies an omission and will empower river purification authorities to apply to the Secretary of State for confirmation of byelaws, as authorised by Sections 25 and 26 of the 1951 Act, applying to streams and to the controlled waters to which the Bill refers.
Byelaws can be made prohibiting the putting of litter or other objectionable matter into streams, and so on. Clause 13(3) refers to the making of byelaws under Section 25(1, c) of the 1951 Act in respect of the ordinary use of sanitary appliances for the purpose of sanitation on vessels in tidal waters. The Amendment seeks to rectify the omission in the Bill, which we clearly intended in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(INTERPRETATION AND CONSTRUCTION.)

The Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 13, line 37, at the end to insert:
(4) Nothing in section 1 of this Act as applied to tidal waters by section 8 of this Act or in section 22 of the principal Act as applied to tidal waters by section 29 thereof shall apply to discharges of oil or mixtures containing oil which are subject to the provisions of the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 and 1963.
This is the same Amendment as I moved in Committee. It was designed primarily to try to sort out the complications which arise as a result of two pieces of legislation which overlap. In Committee, I received some fairly unsatisfactory answers from the Under-Secretary of State in his rejection of my Amendment, but I did not at that time press him too hard because I realised that the complications were rather far-reaching and that it would take him and his advisers some time to sort them out and to understand how difficult was this problem. I have tabled this Amendment again in the hope that in the interval he has had time to reflect on it and the wisdom of accepting it.
This is a matter which closely concerns not only the Secretary of State for Scotland, but the Minister of Transport, the Law Officers and, indeed, the Foreign Office. I am rather disappointed that none of the Ministers of those Departments is able to be here this afternoon, not only to hear the arguments which I put forward, but to support them, because I am sure that had they been in their seats they would have supported my case.
First, the Minister of Transport has considerable responsibility for shipping legislation throughout the United Kingdom. We are legislating for or against shipping, however one likes to put it, throughout the United Kingdom. Yet the right hon. Gentleman is not with us. Secondly, there is the Foreign Secretary, who must presumably have some interest in international conventions and agreements. I am sure that he would have very grave doubts about the wisdom of Scotland breaking international agreements unilaterally, which is what we are doing, and going behind the legislation produced as a result of those agreements

in the form of the oil in Navigable Water Acts, of 1955 and 1963.
One might normally have expected that a Law Officer would be with us because this is a matter which involves not only Scottish law but international law. It is a disadvantage to the House and a pity that we should be deprived on an occasion like this of the valuable services of both a Lord Advocate and a Solicitor-General simply because of the inability of the Government to provide seats in the House of Commons for them. No doubt we shall continue to suffer from their absence in view of the lessons which the Government have, doubtless, learned from Leyton and Nuneaton.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Amendment.

The Earl of Dalkeith: I will go on to other points, Dr. King.
I suggest that it would be very useful if we had a Law Officer with us. I would even go so far as to say that it would have been better if we had had an English Law Officer rather than none at all. We on this side are fortunate in having an adviser present.
The Minister of Transport is sorely missed. It is a most regrettable absence, because I feel that he would have had considerable sympathy for my Amendment. I should like to know from the Under-Secretary of State whether he has consulted the Minister of Transport on this matter and, if so, whether his right hon. Friend has given his unqualified approval for Scotland to go ahead in this way and to do what is being done, which is violating an international agreement designed to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
6.0 p.m.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might also say whether the Prime Minister is fully acquainted with what is going on. The Prime Minister is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of various Government Departments and Ministries and here we have an example of two Government Departments proceeding in diametrically opposite directions—the Ministry of Transport, on the one hand, and the Scottish Office on the other hand. It is a serious matter.
Since the Committee stage I have looked carefully at the Government's reasons for not accepting the Amendment. In my view, none of those reasons for opposing it is valid. First, it was suggested that acceptance of the Amendment would involve a change in Government policy. I simply cannot agree with that. It would certainly seem to me that for the United Kingdom as a whole rather than in the exceptional cases covered by the Forth and Solway Orders, it would be non-acceptance of the Amendment which would involve a change in policy on the part of the Government. The Government's policy for the United Kingdom as a whole has always been clear ever since the Government ratified the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil on 6th May, 1955. Furthermore, the Government confirmed their policy in ratifying the 1962 Convention on 28th August, 1963.
That, surely, is a clear indication that it was the Government's intention to respect those international agreements, which were embodied in the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963, and that shipping would be subject to the same rules in this country as in other countries which were signatories to the same agreement and conventions. It therefore follows that if the Government are to be consistent in their policy, they should accept the Amendment.
The other main argument for rejecting the Amendment was that it would weaken this legislation. Various hon. Members suggested that it would be a waste of time cleaning the upper reaches of rivers if shipping was allowed to pollute the lower reaches without being prevented from so doing. If this was so I would have sympathy for that point of view—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

6.3 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

Consolidated Fund Act. 1965.

Orders of the Day — RIVERS (PREVENTION OF POLLUTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL

6.15 p.m.

The Earl of Dalkeith: I was on the point of saying that some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that acceptance of the Amendment will in some way weaken the Bill. I do not think that it will. If it were to have that effect, I would have some sympathy with their point of view, but I do not think that will be the case. If they believe that it will weaken the Bill, it possibly shows that there is a certain misunderstanding about the position. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will agree that the areas in and around Scotland where the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts do not apply are very few and far between, and that they are the exceptions. Perhaps when he replies to the debate he will be good enough to say which specific areas around our coasts are not already covered by those Acts.
The hon. Gentleman might be able to meet the difficulty by amending my Amendment; by doing something to ensure that the Bill is confined in its operation in relation to shipping to these exceptional areas. This will remove the objectionable dubiety which arises from this overlapping legislation. The hon. Gentleman may say that prosecutions are likely to arise only under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts. This might be some small crumb of comfort to some, but, on the other hand, I think that it would give him even less excuse for not accepting the Amendment.
For the benefit of anybody who is still anxious about the Amendment weakening the Bill, it is worth pointing out that the maximum fine under the Bill is a mere £50 on summary conviction, and £200 on indictment, whereas there is a maximum fine of £1,000 on summary conviction and a fine without limit on indictment under the 1955 Act to which I have referred.
One of the troubles is that the defences which are available to shipping, and which have been internationally agreed, under the 1955 Act would not be available to shipping under our Scottish legislation. I go further to back up the point that the 1955 Act is fairly


effective in its operation by drawing attention to the figures for the last three years which, I think, show that under Section 3 of that Act enforcement is reasonably effective. In 1961 there were 50 prosecutions, and 43 convictions. In 1962 there were 51 prosecutions, and 46 convictions. In 1963 there were 45 prosecutions, and 42 convictions.
There is just one other point to which I should like to refer, the point which the hon. Gentleman gave as an objection during the Committee stage. He suggested that the river purification authority might not be sure whether the pollution was caused by shipping or by industrial plant. This does not seem to be a relevant argument, because it seems hardly likely that the prosecution stage will be reached before the source of pollution has been definitely established and confirmed beyond doubt.
It seems to me that the Government's obstinacy in accepting the Amendment typifies their inward-looking and insular attitude to life generally. Most of us on this side of the House believe that the United Kingdom has a leading rôle to play in international affairs, and one way to implement that rôle is to recognise and honour our international agreements. Here we have an example of the Government attempting to violate such an agreement, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider very seriously the question of possible reprisals against British shipping in foreign ports as a result of this. The Amendment would do no harm to this excellent and admirable Bill, and it would definitely help relationships abroad. I therefore urge the Minister to consider its acceptance.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: During the discussion of our Amendments the Under-Secretary has agreed to some of our recommendations and requests. He has been quite reasonable in respect of some of them, but in respect of this Amendment the only assurance of any kind that we were able to obtain in Committee was the comfort offered to some shipowners by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who suggested that if the people concerned with bringing a case to court had to choose between two Acts on river pollution they would probably choose the

Act which dealt specifically with their industry's problems. If we could have a similar assurance from the Government the Amendment would not be necessary, but we have not been given any such assurance.
What surprised me about the fact that the Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment is that the major seaport in Scotland in Glasgow. All our ships go there from time to time. But the problem with which we are now concerned cannot possibly arise in the case of the Clyde because of the ludicrous situation that exists there, with one half of the Clyde being covered by the provisions and the other half not being protected at all.
The River Pollution Act, which was passed in 1951, laid down to which part of the Clyde the Act should apply, and it was stated that the tidal sections of the river were to be covered only when the Secretary of State brought in the relevant order. Despite the fact that the Act was passed in 1951 it was not until 1962 that the Order was specifically made. There was a public inquiry because objections were raised.
The surprising thing is that instead of objections being received from industrialists the only ones that come in came from the shipping industry. This shows the serious position facing the industry. It was the only objector to the proposal. For this reason the Government of the day decided to postpone the implementation of the Order. That shows how seriously that Government regarded the problems of the shipping industry.
In those circumstances, it is clear that even if the Amendment were not accepted most of its provisions would operate, because it would not apply to the Clyde. If the River Purification Bill does not apply to the Clyde the provisions to which we object will not apply. I cannot see any justification for imposing very stringent regulations upon the rest of Scotland while the Clyde is completely exempt. I hope that the Under-Secretary will deal with that point.
Apart from that there is the simple question of justice. It has been mentioned by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith) that in other countries there is conformity, because the same provisions are applied. It says quite categorically


that vessels should not discharge oil. The only defence available to them is proof of special circumstances which made it impracticable or unreasonable to retain oil in their ships. That is fair enough. If it is unreasonable to retain oil it should not be an offence to discharge it. It does not provide in any way that ships are free to discharge oil.
There is no question of that provision applying to the Clyde, because it is not controlled. That is why we are pressing the point.

Mr. Archie Manuel: I was not thinking of the Clyde, but of many pleasant reaches on both coasts of Scotland which are riddled with river pollution.

Mr. Taylor: I agree about that, and that something should be done. That is why I hope that in the case of the Clyde the Under-Secretary will take the necessary steps. It will not make the slightest difference whether or not we accept the Amendment. If we accepted the Amendment it would merely provide that a defence would be available to shipowners if they could prove that the retention of oil was unreasonable or impracticable. It would not stop oil being discharged if it was impracticable to retain it in the ship.
The other change that we are making concerns penalties. It seems a little unreasonable that the penalty in one court in this country should be different from the penalty for exactly the same crime in another court in this country, and it is equally unreasonable that the penalties should not be the same in Scotland. That will be the position, however. The penalty for discharging oil in the Clyde will be different from that for discharging oil in the Forth, and different from that for discharging oil in an English port. That is ludicrous and unreasonable.
The one defence put forward by the Under-Secretary was that if we accepted the Amendment it would weaken and damage the Bill. Would it weaken it? We have been told by some hon. Members that most of the cases raised would be raised under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act. If that is so, the Amendment would not weaken the Bill in any way. Even if, by chance, actions were brought under the Bill, it would not

affect the Clyde at present. About half of our shipping would be excluded from the provisions.
In all the circumstances it would be fair and reasonable to accept the Amendment, because it will not make a material difference to the position which exists round the Scottish coasts.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: This is the second attempt that we have made to press the Amendment on the Government, and I hope that on this occasion they will accept it. I have listened with care to the arguments adduced by hon. Members opposite and, in particular, the Under-Secretary, and I have read the arguments as reported, but I fail to see that the Government have challenged in any effective way the case that has been made out in support of the Amendment.
It is difficult to understand why the Government should be so anxious to preserve the application of this legislation to circumstances which are already covered by other legislation passed specifically to deal with those circumstances, and flowing from international agreements and conventions. I find it all the more difficult to understand this attitude on the Part of the Under-Secretary when this inconsistency has received statutory recognition in the English Act—the corresponding Act which has already been passed into law in England.
Section 13(3) of that Act says:
Nothing in this Act or section seven of the principal Act shall be taken as applying to the discharge of effluent from a ship or vessel.
It is difficult to understand why departure should be made, in the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Bill, from the course adopted after due thought and consideration by the legislature not long ago—indeed, in 1961.
I know that an offence can be created under two separate statutes, and I also know that an offence can be created under one statute which is already a common law crime. To meet that situation the Interpretation Act has properly provided that a person cannot be prosecuted twice, or that a person cannot pay a double penalty for what is, in effect, the same offence. But that, in my submission, should not be taken as an invitation to create by Statute an offence which


is already to be found in an earlier Statute unless it has been found from experience that the previous legislation has not operated properly, is ineffective, or inadequate.
6.30 p.m.
Of course, in that situation the proper course to follow would be to repeal the earlier legislation and to supersede it by legislation more appropriate in the light of existing experience. On any view it cannot be said that the 1955 Oil in Navigable Waters Act is unsatisfactory or ineffective. It must be accepted that that Act, which was carefully drafted—as was the subsequent Act—to deal with this special problem on the basis of international convention and recognises the gravity of the problem by the very weight and force of the sentence which that field of legislation provides.
If this Amendment is rejected, we shall have two Statutes creating the same offence; widely differing in their penal provision; utterly contradictory on the question of the defence open to the accused and setting up—this is an even more cogent criticism which may be made of the result of this proposal—two contradictory codes of law affecting sea-going vessels in different parts of the United Kingdom. I cannot see that that is a satisfactory state of affairs. I cannot understand the tenacity with which the Government hold on to their proposals in this matter.
How is the prosecutor to know under which piece of legislation he is to proceed? How is he to be guided? With respect, I think that the provisions in this Bill would create an enormous difficulty for a prosecutor in Scotland because it is clear, from reading the Bill in a commonsense way, that it has never been Intended to cover oil pollution from sea-going vessels at all. I pass no concluded view on this, but I think that it would be exceedingly difficult for a prosecutor to get a charge brought under Clause 1 of the Bill to stick, if he took proceedings under that Clause against the owner or the master of a seagoing vessel. This type of provision deals with discharges of trade or sewage effluent.
The definition section in the 1951 Act defines "trade effluent" as including
any liquid (either with or without particles of matter in suspension therein) which is discharged

from any premises other than surface water and domestic sewage.
I have gone through Stroud's Judicial Dictionary with great care, but I have been unable to find any instance of the word "premises" being used in connection with a seagoing vessel, except in one special case where it was applied in the interpretation of an insurance policy relating to fire on a ship. I should think that any prosecutor who attempted to obtain a conviction by proceeding under Clause 1 of the Bill would be asking for trouble.
As I pointed out during the Committee stage proceedings, I cannot imagine a prosecutor proceeding to deal with oil pollution from a seagoing vessel and doing so under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Acts in preference to the legislation specifically designed to deal with the situation. Accordingly, unless there are very good reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted, it seems to me that it ought to be, because in my submission there are very good reasons why it should be accepted and I have endeavoured to put them shortly.
What about the reasons advanced by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland against the Amendment when it was considered during the Committee stage discussions? The hon. Gentleman said, first, that it would be contrary to Government policy. I think that there the hon. Gentleman was referring to some observations of mine about the Secretary of State of the day who refused to accede to suggestions in respect of the Solway Confirmation Order that there should be a proviso excluding the operation of the Order in respect of oil pollution.
This is not a change in Government policy which is being suggested. The Government at that time had to take legislation as it stood. For the Secretary of State for Scotland that was the 1951 Act and the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955. I am suggesting that the time has come for a change to be made. Since the change has already been made in England after the introduction of the oil in navigable waters legislation, it seems reasonable and natural that some change should be made in the legislation affecting Scotland.
After referring to the fact that Section 13 of the 1961 Act altered the position, he went on:
In Scotland, we have not pursued that line on the view that we could not well control discharges of foul effluents from land and yet permit them from ships.
With respect, that has nothing to do with the matter. It is not a question of preventing discharge from land and permitting it from ships. The whole point of the argument is that discharges from ships are covered already by legislation specifically designed to meet that.
The hon. Gentleman continued:
There are other difficulties; perhaps they are not too serious.
I think that the hon. Gentleman was be coming a little self-conscious about the weight of his argument by this time because on several occasions he watered it down in this way.
It depends very much on the viewpoint which is taken, but it does not follow that the areas covered in the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts are the same as those covered by our own Bill, or by tidal orders we may promote either in the immediate future or in years to come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 17th December, 1964, c. 175–7.]
I have, with respect, great difficulty in understanding that because Section 3(2) of the 1955 Oil in Navigable Waters Act makes clear that that legislation covers all the waters which can conceivably be covered by this legislation. The subsection reads:
This section applies to the following waters, that is to say,

(a) the whole of the sea within the seaward limits of the territorial waters of the United Kingdom, and
(b) all other waters (including inland waters) which are within those limits and are navigable by sea-going ships."

I cannot see that the argument that there may be a gap in the operation of the two pieces of legislation is open to the hon. Gentleman. Even if, by reference to the definition Sections as to the scope of the legislation, that were to arise, it seems to me it is covered by the Amendment which seeks to exclude the operation of the rivers pollution legislation in respect of the discharges already subject to the provisions of the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts. If it were not covered by those Acts it would be covered by the legislation relating to pollution.
The hon. Gentleman gave other reasons. He said there would be great difficulty for the river purification authorities in their immense task of trying to trace the origin of pollution which could come from ships and be considered under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act. It might not be certain whether the pollution came from a ship or from industrial plant on the upper or lower reaches of the river. So what? If we cannot pin down the source of the pollution, we cannot support a prosecution under either of these Acts.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: What does that prove?

Mr. Wylie: I am obliged to the Under Secretary. It proves nothing at all.

Dr. Mabon: The hon. Member is being unfair. In the final part of my argument I was seeking to answer the arguments which had been put. I was not discussing those arguments but taking them on their face value and seeking to answer them. In the earlier part of my speech I was arguing the case for the Government and later I was replying to the arguments of hon. Members opposite, for which I am hardly responsible.

Mr. Wylie: I have no wish to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman in this matter, because I think that he was exceedingly fair in the way in which he presented—and very skilfully presented—his whole case. If I misunderstood him in this matter, I regret having done so.
It seems to me—and other hon. Members who have read this seem to have been misled in the same way—that this is one of the difficulties which could arise if this Amendment were allowed. The whole speech which the hon. Gentleman made on this matter was directed to the question as to whether this Amendment should be allowed. All he said had some bearing on the Amendment and could reasonably be taken as reasons for fighting it. If these are not reasons for objecting to it. I shall certainly deal no further with that.
If a master of a vessel discharges oil into a navigable tidal waterway, he is subject to very heavy penalties for committing a very serious offence, which he has in fact committed. It seems unreasonable to go further than that and say that he has also committed an offence


under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, because he did so without first obtaining the consent of the river purification board to do so, and without first having applied to the river purification board explaining all the details contained in subsection (2) of Section 1, being the composition of the effluent, the maximum temperature of the effluent, the maximum volume of the effluent and the highest rate at which it is proposed to discharge the effluent.
That is the provision which is created, that is the provision which is said to be breached by the master of a vessel who discharges oil in a tidal waterway. Surely to goodness, on any commonsense reading of that, it is perfectly clear that it has never been meant to apply to discharges of oil by seagoing vessels and that what should be used and, in my opinion, would be used in this matter for offences of that nature would be the legislation which Parliament passed only a few years ago specifically with that need in mind.
I hone that the Under Secretary of State will allow this Amendment to be made.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Manuel: I think that it is possibly a good thing that we are getting another opportunity to deal with this matter. Certainly, the Opposition have shown, by pulling out nearly all the stops, that they are very keen on this. We must probe a little into why they are so keen about it. The Opposition have moved on too yarrow a front.
Even the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) rested the whole of his case on the provisions applying under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955, and 1963. Of course, he is under the misapprehension that the only fouling of waters we get is caused by oil. He never mentioned anything else, but there are many other kinds of detestable matter which come from ships. He should recognise, also, that the tighter the public authorities and the Government make conditions in our streams and inland waters for the dumping ad lib by industry of noxious effluents of any particular character which they have to get rid of, the greater will be the risk of those noxious effluents being taken

to sea and dumped if they are not oil. How would he deal with that?

Mr. Wylie: Of course, anything which was dumped at sea and which was not covered by the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts would fall within the ambit of the River Purification Act.

Mr. Manuel: The hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to prove that this all boils down to oil and, of course, the big weakness here has been to establish whether oil was released in an emergency or not. Who is to prove it? Who is the witness from that ship who will say that in a court if a public or local authority is taking action? The thing is impossible. I am convinced that we will have to make even more stringent provisions to avoid the befoulment of our beaches.
For instance, we are having a pile-up and an augmentation of the effluent coming from distilleries. It is quite foreseeable that distilleries could use craft to take oil possibly or some of the effluent from the distillery to sea and befoul a lovely Highland loch. I should abhor this practice. Even in the matter of the provisions relating to oil, I am convinced that we have still a great deal to do. We cannot pin down the master's responsibility—or, more truly, the ship's responsibility. We all know that many of our beaches are completely befouled and lovely stretches of sand ruined and bathing made impossible. All of us have had occasion to rescue sea birds, some of them of rare species, befouled with oil, who could not get off the ground. I have myself tried to save bird life afflicted in this way and found it nearly impossible because of oil discharged from sumps and tanks by ships at sea or offshore.
If there is any danger—and I do not say that I know as much about this subject as other hon. Members, but I have this instinctive thought—I want to be on the side of those who will stop this thing happening. We have to have some regard to the steps which are being taken to remedy this matter. Even the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands brought up the old question about England doing this and asked why we are not following her example. Surely he is more of a Scot than that. Surely he is not saying, especially in legal


matters, that we should follow the English pattern. Certainly, I am not amenable to that course being followed in this or in any other Bill. I think that that argument falls.
It appears to me that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite recoil from doing something in the public interest which they are always willing to do in the private interest. I think that it is private interest here, in the main, coming from some shipping men or shipping companies, or something like that.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: rose—

Mr. Manuel: No, no. Hon. Gentle men must learn to take their medicine when it is being administered, and look pleasant about it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are obeying orders, just as they sometimes tell us that we do from trade unions and other organisations. I have never obeyed an order from a trade union with regard to my work in this House in my life, and I would not tolerate such an order. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would show some backbone about these matters.
I hope that hon. Members will consider very seriously whether we might be doing an injury to, and spoiling, Scotland, because the tighter we legislate to clean inland waterways and streams throughout Scotland the more will be the temptation to dump at sea.

Mr. John Rankin: I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will give very careful thought to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who emphasised the problem which faces the river pollution board in which we in Glasgow have much interest. In seeking to deal with the cleanliness of the tidal waters of the Clyde, of the weir at Gorbals, right round to the Cloch opposite Dunoon, we have been frustrated and denied powers which exist in respect of the Forth and the Solway. These powers are denied to Glasgow and lead to the pollution which my hon. Friend has so well underlined.
The real difficulty which is posed to Glasgow's purification board resides in the fact that an order which should have been laid and confirmed by a Secretary of State was not laid and confirmed. That

Secretary of State was the Secretary of State in the lately deceased Tory Government. If Glasgow has trouble today in keeping the tidal waters of the Clyde as clean as Glasgow wants to keep them, it is because we suffer from the disabilities which occur due to the amazing inactivity of a Tory Secretary of State, not spread over weeks or months but spread over two solid years.
That is the problem which faces us today. Unfortunately, through one of these mishaps which occur from time to time on the Report stage of the Bill, we were denied the opportunity of dealing directly with the matter through the recognised procedure of the House. Naturally, we have seized the one opportunity which presents itself during the debate. Great responsibility rests on the shoulders of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I will not ask him to redeem the misdeeds of Toryism, but I ask him to give Glasgow at least a hope of speedy action to deal with this matter—a hope which was denied to them completely by the Government who have just gone out of office.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: May I respond at once to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin)? I appreciate why he has spoken in those words and why the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has joined him in virtually the same plea. My hon. Friend the Member for Govan has been more consistent, because there is some sense in making the plea and at the same time wanting to resist the Amendment—but I will deal with that in a moment.
I should like to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Govan and all other Glasgow Members interested, and especially those who represent Clydeside—and I am one of those—that the Board have made it clear that they are much more prepared than we were led to believe when the proceedings on the Bill began in the House. When the Bill receives its Royal Assent, if it remains in its present form and is not amended elsewhere on this point, the matters which would have been effected by the confirmation by the previous Secretary of State of the order to which my hon. Friend referred will become effective.
With relation to the second part, which is more important, I should like to make


it clear that the Board will have power to make formal application, as soon as they are ready—and if they are ready now, very well, let them take steps when the Bill becomes law to make formal application under Section 29(2) for the extended area to become operative. It will then be in the right of my right hon. Friend to ask for objections, if necessary to arrange for any public inquiry and ultimately to arbitrate in his position of Secretary of State on whether the order in that form should be confirmed. I give that undertaking to deal with the point. We wish the Board well. If they wish to promote this right away, whenever the Bill becomes an Act, we shall do our very best to give every consideration to the matter when it comes forward.
Having said that, it confirms the hon. Member for Cathcart in his view—which he may think about again—that it is not desirable to give in to this Amendment. I have read all his speeches with great care. If they are all taken together they show a remarkable inconsistency. I do not blame him. I realise that the debates have been very long and somewhat complex in Committee. But if he is advocating that we should cleanse the Clyde, I cannot see how he can support this Amendment which would even antedate us in relation to the English—and this is the substance of the argument. The position in Scotland is not the same as it is in England
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) helped me considerably in his speech. If hon. Members read his speeches they will see that he is still supporting the argument but on rather different and more substantial grounds, which is why I welcome the debate this afternoon and why I will seek to reply to it later. But if hon. Members read his remarks they will see that he has dealt with a number of objections quite conclusively. The Act of 1955 applies to Scotland and, so after, all does the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. There is, of course, the Interpretation Act, 1889, which allows the choice of proceedings to be made.
The Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955, also enacts in Section 24(2) a very important item. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (The Earl of Dalkeith),

I hope with his tongue in his cheek, asked me whether we had consulted the Minister of Transport, the Foreign Secretary, the Scottish Law Officers and the Prime Minister. This is a Government Bill, and, of course, all these distinguished persons are consulted in the normal processes of Government, and they have, naturally come forward in the collective responsibility, which every Minister must and does express, in public to say that this is all agreed.
The hon. Member, referring to the Foreign Secretary, made the serious charge—I hope that I am not taking him too seriously—that we are breaking an international convention. But Section 24(2) says that nothing in it
shall affect any restriction imposed by or under any other enactments whether contained in a public general Act or in a local or private Act, or shall derogate from any right of action or other remedy, (whether civil or criminal) in proceedings instituted otherwise.
We are covered here, and every other party to the convention is covered. Parliament clearly intended that the 1951 Act should also apply to discharges from ships.
Let me turn to the English provisions. First, may I point out that it is not the Minister of Transport who would be concerned in this matter, but my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, because we have rearranged functions. This is a small point. We have, naturally, communicated with the responsible Government Departments concerned, and they have expressed no disagreement, but are quite content that we should proceed with this matter, having considered the matter most fully. I have no doubt that it has the Prime Minister's blessing, too.
Section 13 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1961, provides that nothing in it or Section 7 of the 1951 Act, which corresponds to Section 28 of the Scottish Act of 1951, shall be taken as applying to the discharge of effluents from a ship or vessel. As the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands pointed out, we have not followed this line, because we cannot control discharges of foul effluent from land yet permit them from ships, or to be tanked on land and dumped from ships. There is, however, a saving in Clause 13(3), permitting the ordinary use of


sanitary appliances on ships, unless bye-laws are made in respect of these discharges.
7.0 p.m.
Having done that, that is not an argument for saying that we should permit polluting discharges of oil from ships and that they should be excepted from the Bill. There is a specific duty laid on river purification authorities and the Secretary of State to promote cleanliness of the rivers, other inland waters and the tidal waters in their areas. No such specific duty is imposed on river authorities, or the Minister, under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951.
I cannot understand why there should be any reference to the previous Administration having to act as they did. As an act of policy, the previous Administration could have said that they did not agree that that was a proper interpretation of the Act. We have looked closely at this matter. The previous Secretary of State confirmed both the Firth of Forth and Solway Tidal Waters Orders and decided, when he made them, that the provisions of both the 1951 and 1955 Acts should apply to these waters.
It is interesting to note that he confirmed those orders despite the clear objections which were raised by those concerned in the promotion of the Amendment we are considering; that is, those outside the House who are, naturally, interested in the success of the Amendment. The objections were made clear, yet the Secretary of State decided to confirm the orders, without fully accepting the case put to him by the objectors.
I have looked carefully at the proceedings in Committee and I have listened to everything said on this topic today. I am sorry if I seemed to get rather annoyed when being quoted in answering arguments put to me. I deliberately used the phrase, "Perhaps not too serious" because it depends on who is advancing the argument. I appreciate that some hon. Members regarded them as serious at the time and, for that reason, I must treat them as such and try to answer them as serious points. That is why I felt at the time that perhaps my good nature was being somewhat exploited.
As I say, I have listened carefully to what has been said on this issue. It is fair to say that no new facts have been adduced, in Committee or today—or from interested bodies and persons outside the House with whom the Scottish Office is in touch, along with those with whom other Government Departments are in communication—to show why the Secretary of State should change existing policy and accept the Amendment.
What has concerned me, nevertheless, is the important point made by the hon. and learned Member for Pentlands. Although not a lawyer, I am informed of difficulties which may arise as a result of legislation, particularly if it may not be considered completely and fully by us all, in particular by Ministers. Therefore, I was most anxious that we should look at this matter more closely. This is linked to a further consideration in relation to Scotland; that criminal prosecution in Scotland is the function of the Crown and, consequently, that the Lord Advocate decides on the facts whether the evidence establishes a case for prosecution and whether charges should be made under the 1955 Act or 1951 Act, as is appropriate in the circumstances.
It is for that reason that I consulted the Lord Advocate and I can say, with his complete approval, to allay any fears, that defences in the 1955 Act may be overlooked, that the Lord Advocate is prepared to issue the following instructions:
I propose to give an instruction to Procurators Fiscal that all cases of alleged contravention of the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts or the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts in respect of discharges of oil from vessels should be reported to the Crown Office for consideration by Crown Counsel. The object of the instruction would be to make certain that prosecutions proceeded under the appropriate code.
This shows that the Government recognise the importance of this matter.
We have before us a fundamentally Scottish Bill. It is parallel in many ways to the English equivalent, but there are some differences. I suggest that it is in the interests of Scotland that we should profit by English experience, since the English Act has taken precedence in time over ours. It would be wrong of us to think that if a new English Bill were


introduced this provision would not be included. How do we know? The Government have decided at the earliest opportunity, in the Scottish Bill, to take up this attitude in continuance, as we see it, of public policy wisely practised by the previous Administration.
We see no point in reversing what has been good, sound public policy for the last 10 years or more. That being so, I must counsel the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. G. Campbell: The Under-Secretary referred to a decision of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State and was critical of his having made a decision to confirm a matter last year. It should be realised that my right hon. Friend made that decision because that was the law at the time. We are now presented with an opportunity to discuss and improve the law in these matters. Although I agree that the Under-Secretary has, in general, been fair in his remarks—I am sure that he would not wish to be unfair—I hope that he realises that he has not made a fair comparison.
I regret that he is unable to accept the Amendment, for there are large areas of tidal waters which are covered by the oil in navigable waters legislation and I understand that the Under-Secretary has accepted that there is considerable overlapping. He was not prepared to accept this in Committee upstairs, but I have the impression that he now accepts that there is a considerable overlap in what he called concurrent legislation. My hon. Friends and I thought it important that there should be an interpretation of the legislation concerned with the discharge of oil or oil mixtures.
The Under-Secretary has not accepted this need although, as I say, the legislation is in need of such interpretation. However, he has been helpful in telling us that the Lord Advocate has given an instruction and, to that extent, he has met us some way in our desires in the Amendment.
In this discussion we have had the advantage of the advice of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) and I cannot refrain from pointing out, for the benefit of the Minister of State, that my hon. and learned Friend has brought to

light a point of interesting legal definition; that in the prevention of pollution legislation the word "premises" occurs and that this word does not cover a ship. This reminds me of the occasions, often at the instigation of the Minister of State, when we have considered the fact that the word "land" includes water. We find ourselves in rather the same metaphysical discussion. As my hon. and learned Friend cogently pointed out, there is a need for official interpretation.
I turn to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who I am glad to see is in his place. He expressed what I quite agree are absolutely right sentiments about the need for clean beaches, and for the protection of birds, which is something in which I am also interested—

Mr. Manuel: Clean speeches?

Mr. Campbell: I said "clean beaches", but I approve of both ideas.
When the Scottish Grand Committee considered the principle of the Bill, we on this side made it clear from the very beginning that we welcomed the fact that the intention was that effluent from ships should be dealt with by this Bill. That means that we approved of the provision that substances that were not oil would, if emitted in relevant tidal waters, be covered by the Bill. There is therefore no difference between the two sides on that aspect—

Mr. Manuel: If the same ship were to emit both used crude oil and other refuse of an obnoxious nature would the hon. Gentleman include that?

Mr. Campbell: It would depend on where it was being emitted, and that brings me to the point that the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts of 1955 and 1963 cover a much wider area. They cover all the area within territorial waters, whereas the tidal waters are just those in the estuaries. Those Acts are, therefore, more powerful and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, not only are they more powerful for that reason but more powerful because the penalties are greater. This is not, therefore, an issue between us, and I wanted to point out why we favour those Acts.
I have made it clear that we welcome what the hon. Gentleman has said as far


as it goes, but we very much hope that it means—because it seems so clearly the sensible course—that in such cases where there is this concurrent legislation, the oil in navigable waters legislation, unless there are very exceptional circumstances will, because it will be the most powerful with regard to the emission of oil, be the legislation chosen by the Lord Advocate.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 15.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, EXTENT, REPEALS AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 14, line 12, at the end to insert:
(5) Section 3(2) of the principal Act shall be amended by the insertion of the words "ports and harbours" after the word "fisheries" in line 5 of paragraph (b) thereof.
Section 3 of the principal Act, the 1951 Act, lays down the composition of river boards, and provides that the Secretary of State, in nominating the members of boards, will appoint representatives of certain interests in the river. It states:
… the remainder of the members shall be appointed by the Secretary of State … to represent the interests of persons concerned with the carrying on of agriculture, fisheries or industry in the river purification board area or any other interests. …
and so on.
There is a major variation in this Bill from the previous legislation, in that tidal waters are for the first time generally included in the provisions of the river purification legislation. In some cases, these tidal waters include ports and harbours, and it seems reasonable, right and proper that the authorities administering the ports and harbours should have their interests directly represented in the river purification authorities. The port principally affected by this Amendment is that of Aberdeen, which is actually situated on the tidal stretch of a river. The port authorities there have very material interests in this legislation, and I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that they are worthy of representation on these boards, and that these words should be inserted.

7.15 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I would counsel hon. Members not to accept this

Amendment, and I will, without disrespect at all to the hon. Member, explain why I do so. If we were to add these words we would be invited, perhaps at a later stage of the Bill, to name special sectional interests of a quite valid kind—the papermaking industry's interests, such as sectional interests of the agricultural industry and other examples will come to mind. There are a number of specific interests that, in specific areas and in regard to specific rivers, might wish to be represented, on the boards if this Amendment was accepted.
We think that in regard to Aberdeen the phrase in Section 3(2) of the 1951 Act is wide enough to let us meet in practice the point advanced in this Amendment. After all, port and harbour interests can be considered as industrial interests. For that matter, the Aberdeen harbour interests, with their extensive fishing interests, could be considered as coming within the definition of fisheries. We think that the phrase is already general enough to specify even ports and harbours; and that to insert the words proposed would invite other unfortunate specific sectional interests which we would think not desirable. While I accept the hon. Member's case in regard to Aberdeen, and the choice of the Secretary of State in regard to that particular area, I would ask the hon. Member not to press his Amendment.

Mr. Hendry: Having brought the matter to the attention of the Under-Secretary, and in view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Hendry: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 14, line 13, to leave out subsections (5) and (6).

Mr. Speaker: I venture to suggest that with this Amendment it is convenient to discuss that in page 17, line 11, leave out "Schedule 3".

Mr. Hendry: This Amendment is very much more far-reaching, although it does not appear so at first glance because I propose to leave out these two subsections, the first of which reads:
(5) The provisions of the principal Act mentioned in Schedule 3 to this Act shall have


effect subject to the amendments specified therein, being minor amendments and amendments consequential on the foregoing provisions of this Act.
I find that extremely interesting. Far be it for me to suggest that the Joint Under-Secretary would deliberately mislead the House, but it is most unfortunate that he should describe these as minor Amendments. The only charitable reason I can think of for his having inserted these words is that his Government, with their well-known enthusiasm, have gone on and preparing a Bill to clean up our rivers and all the rest without giving the faintest thoughts to the possible consequences of what they are doing.
Let us look at what the so-called minor Amendments are. They have practically all one purpose, and that is to eliminate from existing legislation the word "reasonable". In the principal Act of 1951 certain offences are created; persons who do certain things such as putting undesirable things into rivers are guilty of offences, and such offences carry extremely heavy penalties. Under the Bill, the penalties, rightly and properly, have been increased.
In every case, however, there comes the question of whether it is reasonably practicable to forbid them to do these things. After all, there must be a criterion as to when a certain course of action is undesirable and offensive and when it becomes really harmless and a matter of reasonableness in any particular case. Previous legislation both in Scotland and in England has given effect to this line of argument.
The principal Act applying to Scotland in several cases listed in Schedules 3 and 4 uses such words as,
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
We find that in every case where the word "reasonable" occurs in the 1951 Act it has been deliberately eliminated. Instead of acting reasonably, the boards are given power to act as they think fit, It is possible that in the first blush of enthusiasm under the powers given to them without thought by this Government the boards might act unreasonably.
I know of a landowner in my constituency, who was concerned only with his selfish interests, the interests of his salmon fishings, and who actually threatened a large industry, sited on a river, that if it did not go a great deal further in purifying its effluent he would

take steps to have the works closed. That was a very serious thing, but it is something which might flow from the Bill. This landowner, a member of a river authority, was using threats to an industry which provided a livelihood for no fewer than 6,000 people.
Consider what is involved. The industry to which I have referred is paper-making and the owners of the mill were considering the installations of a purification plant at a cost of about £70,000. That would produce an effluent which to all intents and purposes would be completely innocuous and would not harm or discolour the river. Yet this member of the river board is insisting quite unreasonably that the mill should produce a much higher standard of effluent. To produce the standard of effluent for which he asked would cost at least £140,000. That amount for a private citizen in Scotland is a very serious matter. It is completely misleading for the Minister to refer to this as a minor Amendment, because anything which caused such expenditure would not be minor.
Since I raised this question in Committee I have heard from another constituent who is faced with an expenditure of no less than £247,000 if the river board acts in an unreasonable way. That is even more serious than the other case I have mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson), who, unfortunately, could not be present today, and has asked me to apologise for her absence, told me that in her constituency a firm employing about 400 people might be put to very considerable expense if the river board were given the powers contemplated by the Bill. It expects that it would have to expend no less than £65,000 although at the moment it is committing no nuisance and there is no serious emission of effluent.
This is a very serious case because the undertaking is a subsidiary of an English firm and I understand that the English principals have capacity in the Manchester area which could absorb this plant if it were faced with this sort of expenditure, and would have no hesitation in doing so. This brings me to the most important consequence of the proposed legislation. The English legislation includes the words
which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld


and makes reasonableness the criterion throughout. The English Act was passed as recently as 1961. The Conservative Government did everything they possibly could to attract industries to Scotland. I cannot believe that the present Government are trying to chase industries away from Scotland, but that is precisely what they will do if this legislation goes through in its present form.
If an industrialist is contemplating setting up an industry in Scotland instead of in England, he will consider in which country he can get the most favourable terms. He knows that in England he will be treated in a reasonable manner under the 1961 Act, but an industrialist looking at this Bill would inevitably think that he would be treated in an unreasonable way in Scotland because the present Government, in presenting the Bill, are going to great trouble to cut out any reference to reasonableness. These are most serious matters. I ask the Under Secretary to think carefully about them. It may be that my Amendments are not correctly worded, but he will have opportunities to put that right.
Schedule 4, which is affected by these Amendments, provides for the repeal of Section 25 of the 1951 Act. That section provides, among other things, for the making of byelaws laying down standards for effluents. I understand that no such byelaw has been made at any time, but there is provision there for river boards to lay down standards, not only for rivers but for parts of rivers. There will be no criterion except what a river board in an arbitrary way may think fit.

Mr. Manue: They are reasonable people.

Mr. Hendry: It may be that they are reasonable people. If so, why not retain the criterion of reasonableness? That is being taken away and the boards are being given dictatorial powers to apply the law in such a way as they may think fit.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry), who has been helpful over so many parts of the Bill, should now make things difficult by what I can only describe as an intemperate speech.
The hon. Member referred to the improper conduct of a certain member of a

board who, I assume, was appointed by his right hon. Friend when he was Secretary of State, or by his predecessor. If that man behaved improperly, as the hon. Member has suggested, the right course of action would be for him to be reported to the Secretary of State. It is quite wrong for a member of a board so to abuse his position as to exploit someone in this unseemly and wrong way. I suggest that if such circumstances were to occur again in any part of Scotland the hon. Member should realise that there is a course of action open, because what he described was an improper use of a public appointment.
In relation to the generality of the argument, we have tried very hard, during our proceedings on the Bill, to show why this difference in wording provides a strengthening of the position for discharges. I experienced some misunderstanding largely caused by Press reports of our proceedings. I do not blame the Press so much, because this is a complex Bill and, by their nature, newspaper reports have to be abbreviated. Nevertheless, I had the experience that the Scottish section of the Federation of British Industries made this kind of response. I tried hard to explain to the delegation, and it accepted my explanation very fully, that the change will not work to the detriment of dischargers, but is in their favour.
By requiring statements of reasons in writing by the boards for refusal of consent, and an appeal to the Secretary of State having the right of hearing by an independent person if requested by the appellant, we have strengthened the position of dischargers. We have done it deliberately. We realised that the Bill would be successful only if the boards did their work properly and at the same time took into account the necessary conditions and circumstances of dischargers. One can ask a man to do only what he is capable of doing, and if he is incapable of doing something for economic reasons and so on, it is wrong for the boards to press ahead unreasonably. That is why there is a provision in the Bill that the conditions to be imposed by boards may be imposed "as they think fit." That has a broader interpretation to a lawyer than the words in the original Act.
I hope that I have managed to content the hon. Gentleman to a certain extent.


I congratulate him upon making on this Amendment the speech that he probably intended to make on the first Amendment. I cannot believe that he wants to proceed with his two Amendments. He criticises the word "minor". I trust that he and I are modest men, but, even in our modesty, perhaps we would not say that the Amendments that we have achieved in the Committee and today are minor. However, I understand that the word "minor" appears here in its legal sense, in relation to the main principles of the original Act, to which we have added qualifications. It is true that in our view the qualifications may be so substantial as to be regarded by us not as minor Amendments but as new principles, but that is a matter of argument and evaluation. However, I should be content, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will, to leave the word "minor" instead of talking about "major" Amendments, which would distort matters.
It would be a pity if by this phrase we disdained what we have achieved for fisheries, because if the Amendment succeeds, the excellent work that we have done in filling the lacuna will be gone. In his splendidly persuasive way, the hon. Gentleman has managed to convert the position about quarries into helping us to clear up the river banks. That was a joint Government-Opposition venture. That would be wrecked, too. The revision achieved by the whole Committee would also be wrecked. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman wishes to persist in wrecking many of the improvements that we have made to the Bill. I believe that he has tabled his Amendments largely to ventilate the matter of the difference between the Bill and the original Act. I hope I have explained the situation, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment, because what he has proposed would wreck the Bill.

Mr. Hendry: I said that my Amendments were imperfect. Because of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(MODIFICATIONS OF SECTIONS 22, 24 AND 28 OF THE PRINCIPAL ACT.)

Amendments made: In page 17, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert:

In subsection (1) for paragraph (c) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(c) if he deposits on any land any solid refuse so that it falls or is carried into a stream";
In subsection (4) for the words from "(which consent" to "quarry" there shall be subtsituted the words "any solid refuse".
In line 17, at end insert:
In subsection (9) for the words from "the proviso" to the word "section" there shall be substituted the words "section 9(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1965";
In subsection (10) for the words "subsection (7)" there shall be substitued the words section 9(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1965".
In section 23—
in subsection (2) for the words "the proviso to subsection (7)" there shall be substituted the words "section 9(1) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1965".—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 17, line 33, at the end to add:
In section 29—
in subsection (2) after the words "direct that" there shall be inserted the words "any of".
This is a drafting Amendment. Clause 12(2) of the Bill applies some, but not all, sections of the 1951 Act—it does not apply Section 22—to those existing discharges controlled by the Bill and to "controlled waters". If the Secretary of State makes an Order under Section 29 of the 1951 Act applying the provisions of this Act to tidal waters, it follows, therefore, that his Order may
direct that any of the provisions of this Act shall apply to any tidal waters …".

Amendment agreed to.

7.35 p.m.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
It has been a most pleasurable experience for me to be associated with this as my first-ever Bill in Parliament. I have for nine long years entered every Ballot and taken advantage of every opportunity, but have always been unsuccessful. So it is a matter of great gratification to be concerned with a Bill of this nature. It is not the sort of Bill that I ever thought I should introduce. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for allowing me this privilege. I am also grateful to my hon.


Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite for the way in which they have received the responses which I have made to the Amendments which have been proposed. I think it can truly be said that in Committee we did a good job in improving the Bill. It is essentially a different Bill in some ways from the English Bill, and I hope that in practice it will prove to be a better Bill and that, indeed, it may be a model which will give the English second thoughts.
I am, naturally, concerned that industry shall not be afraid of the Bill but will see that it is a part of the modernisation of Scotland that must take place if we are to become a great nation again. The last thing I should want the Bill to do would be to impede industrial advance and the new industrial development which will be so essential to the growth of the Scottish economy. I am sure we are all united in that.
I know that the river purification authorities and boards, in considering applications for consents under this legislation, will continue with the same moderate powers and co-operative approach as they have hitherto done. If there are any doubts about this, I hope that hon. Members will be vigilant, and I also hope that the industries and dischargers concerned will not hesitate to exercise their full rights under the Bill so that Ministers will be aware of how things are working out.
It is the Government's intention that the factors affecting the operation of the river purification boards and authorities shall be brought to their notice in the administrative guidance which will be issued to them by the Department once the Bill is enacted. I trust that we have taken into account the representations that we have received from various persons, industry, agriculture, local authorities and fishing interests. I hope that we have made a good Bill.
I repeat the undertaking I gave on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that it is our hope that in this Parliament we shall introduce comprehensive legislation to implement the provisions of the Hill-Watson Report and which will include the sewerage purification so long overdue. I cannot go further than that at this stage. My hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that in this

Parliament we are engaged in a very heavy programme of legislation. I can only hope that what future Bills we introduce concerning allied matters will be met by the good feeling and helpful efforts which all hon. Members have demonstrated so well during the proceedings on this Bill.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. G. Campbell: We on this side of the House have made clear our support for the principles of the Bill and that we will be glad to see it enacted soon. We have done our best to make some improvements in it and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we were particularly concerned about timing. We were, therefore, especially glad to hear him give an assurance today that the Government would use their discretion about deciding the date of the appointed day, bearing in mind the anxieties and difficulties not only of industry, but of local authorities and others who might be concerned. We also welcome his statement that he had given assurances direct to some of the representatives of the persons affected and of industry.
In seeking the co-operation of those who will have the task of carrying out the provisions of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman must also bear in mind that some of them may have to incur considerable expense in the general cause of preventing pollution. I emphasise that not only industry but local authorities will be affected by the Bill and will be much concerned about the expenditure that will have to be met by ratepayers.
I am sure that we all want clean rivers and beaches. I take the opportunity of reference to clean beaches to mention the far-reaching effect of Clause 8 in dealing with tidal waters. Power is granted to the Secretary of State to use his discretion in deciding when various tidal waters will be included, in two stages, within the provisions of the Acts concerning the prevention of pollution.
Whereas in the case of rivers it is possible to make calculations—some of them not very easy—based on the flow of the river and other factors, about the effects of certain concentrations of effluent, it is very much more difficult to work out the same kind of problems where tidal waters are concerned. I will name only a few factors. There are tides


and currents; also the degree of salinity in the water and the effect of this on different kinds of effluent.
These are all highly technical matters and I understand that there is still a great deal of work to be done before we can pretend to know all the answers. In carrying out the provisions of Clause 8, we feel it important that the Government of the day and the purification authorities should bear in mind the fact that this science is still virtually in its infancy and that study of these factors must be taken into account before a local authority or an industry is penalised, perhaps unnecessarily.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State on piloting through so skilfully his first Bill and also thank him for the courtesy with which he has always treated our suggestions, a courtesy which has marked his dealings with us in general in handling the Bill. We fully support the principles of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISHERIES

7.43 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. George Willis): I beg to move,
That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-net Fishing) (Extension) Order, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.
The purpose of the Order is to extend the operation of the present prohibition on drift-net fishing for salmon for a further year after the expiry of the present Order on 15th February. As hon. Members know, this prohibition was first introduced in September, 1962. The Order was introduced by the previous Government and we criticised it strongly at the time, as we thought that the prohibition was unfair and that the Government should have waited until the Hunter Committee, which they had set up, had reported.
The Government replied that they were bringing in the Order because it was feared that the practice of drift-net fishing for salmon, which had developed rapidly off the coast of Scotland in the two preceding years, would seriously damage the stocks of salmon and the salmon fisheries.
What did seem to be clear, however, was that the state of scientific knowledge did not enable anyone to say definitely what the effects of drift netting were or were likely to be on the stocks of salmon and that it was virtually impossible to distinguish the effects of this form of fishing from the many other things which can affect salmon stocks and can make the catches vary from year to year.
The Government of the day knew that they had insufficient information. They were obviously in very great doubt about what they ought to do and recognised that further investigations into the whole matter were necessary before a final decision could he taken. They limited the duration of the Order to the 2frac12; years up to 15th February next and, before the prohibition was introduced, the then Secretary of State for Scotland appointed a Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Hunter to review the law relating to salmon and trout fisheries in Scotland and particularly asked the Committee to give priority to the question of the regulation of fishing for salmon, including fishing by drift net.
The Hunter Committee did this and in the summer of 1963 submitted an interim Report, dealing mainly with the drift netting issue, which was published by the Secretary of State that July. In this Report the Committee stated that it had reached a number of conclusions about drift-net fishing for salmon. It noted that if drift-net fishing were allowed an increase in this form of fishing would probably come about and that the trend of catches could be expected to rise very sharply indeed in a favourable season. The Report went on
An unregulated drift-net fishery could quickly deplete salmon stocks in some rivers.
The Committee thus made it clear that, in its view, an unregulated drift-net fishery would offer no secure future either to traditional salmon netsmen, to anglers or to the drift netters themselves. It therefore proceeded to consider the practicability of some form of regulation which would avoid the dangers of a totally uncontrolled fishing and to examine various possibilities such as weekly and annual close times, licensing of nets or boats, catch quotas and restrictions on length or mesh of nets.
In the end, the Committee had to report that none of these methods would, either


by itself or in combination, be a satisfactory means of control and that it had not been successful in finding a system of control which it thought would be workable under the existing law. But any question of altering the existing law would, of course, bring in all the methods of fishing for salmon and mean considering all aspects of the law relating to salmon and trout fisheries. Since the interim Report, therefore, the Committee has been engaged on a more general review of all aspects of the law relating to salmon and trout fisheries, in the course of which it will be considering the effects of all forms of salmon fishing and not only drift netting.
I know that this work is being done with all reasonable speed, but the salmon laws are nearly 100 years old and the work of the Committee is naturally of some complexity. I understand that it hopes to be able to let the Secretary of State have its final Report by early summer.
The House will understand that this presented us with a rather difficult situation. The Order prohibiting drift-net fishing for salmon was due to expire on 15th February. We had the choice of putting an end to the present situation, which was not of our making and which we do not much like, or continuing the prohibition for a further period.
To alter the present situation now would mean taking a decision on this matter within a few months of the Hunter Committee's final Report. After considering this very carefully in the light of the various representations made to us, it seemed, particularly in view of the conclusions of the Hunter Committee in its interim Report, that the only reasonable and sensible thing to do was to continue the prohibition of drift-net fishing for salmon for a time until we had the Committee's final Report and could see what recommendations it made.
The effect of the Order is, therefore, simply to extend the duration of the present prohibition on drift-net fishing off the coast of Scotland for a period of one year. The present Order expires on 15th February and the new Order would renew the prohibition until 15th February, 1966. We hope that this will give us time to consider the recommendations made in the final Report of the Hunter Committee and to decide what action should then be

taken. By making this Order now, we are not committing ourselves to retaining the prohibition any longer than we think is necessary.
One of our main criticisms against the Order when it was introduced was that it was preventing our own fishermen from fishing for salmon in an area outside our territorial waters where foreign fishermen could fish if they liked. There was a great deal of discussion about allowing other nationals some things and at the same time prohibiting our own nationals from the same activity. However, the passing of the Fishery Limits Act last year has now extended our fishery limits to 12 miles from new base lines, and so foreigners are not allowed to fish for salmon in this much greater area. The position is, therefore, a little less anomalous than it was when the first Order was introduced.
I realise that this decision will be rather disappointing to those fishermen who successfully engaged in drift-net fishing for salmon before the prohibition was introduced. I have already been told that in my own constituency. I should like to assure the House and the fishermen themselves that we have carefully considered whether it would be right, as some of the fishermen's associations have suggested to us, to allow some limited drift-net fishing after the present Order expires, but, after full consideration, we have reached the conclusion that it would simply not be a wise proposition in the circumstances.
In conclusion, I assure the House that when the Hunter Committee's Report is received, we will examine this matter again very fully and urgently. Meanwhile, I hope that the House will agree to continue the main Order for another 12 months.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I personally object very strongly to this Order, firstly because of the length of time. The Order prohibiting drift-net fishing for salmon off the coast of Scotland was made in September, 1962, and the Committee set up under Lord Hunter to review the Scottish salmon and trout laws was asked to look at the question as a matter of urgency. The original Order was made until February, 1965. Now we have this extension to February, 1966.
I perfectly well understand the case which the Minister of State was making about the time-table, but in July, 1963, the Hunter Committee produced an interim Report. Even by then it had been able to collate all possible evidence on Scottish salmon fisheries. Since then, almost two years have elapsed and now we are to let a third slip past. What has been happening and what is the Committee to do in this third year which is to be different from what it has done in the past two years and which can justify this extension?
Meanwhile, the prohibition of all drift netting for salmon in Scotland is to go on. Many people, and they are not only fishermen, feel that to be unjust. The main reason is that drift netting for salmon is allowed under licence in England. Why should such a practice be lawful for the English and not lawful for the Scots?
I asked the new Government this question as soon as they had had time to look around their offices. The reply I received did not indicate that they had done very much else. I was told that the situation in England was not parallel, because drift-net fishing under licence off the English coast was the traditional method of catching salmon. That is no reason, of course. That is tradition converted by prejudice into an argument.
Then I was told that drift netting under licence in England did not offer an additional threat to salmon stocks. But is it true that such a threat was offered by drift netting under licence in Scotland? Let me quote the Hunter Committee's interim Report which in July, 1963, said:
On the evidence submitted, it could not be conclusively demonstrated that Scottish salmon stock had so far been harmed by drift-net fishermen.
The Committee went even further. On whether drift netting hindered spawning escapement, it said:
Information about catches and spawning does not allow any reliable conclusion to be drawn about the effect of drift-net fishing on that escapement.
On the extremely important point of whether drift netting robs other men of their livelihoods, the Report pointed out that in 1962, when drift netting was at its height, coastal and river nets on the east coast had a record catch—323,000 against 297,000 in 1952. while rods took

50,000 as against 32,000 in 1952. In fact, drift nets captured less than a quarter of the total catch.
Finally, I was told that in effect drift netting in Scotland presented an unmanageable problem. Why? I accept, and I think everybody does, certainly the fishermen do, that unregulated drift-net fishing for salmon means a risk of over-fishing. Nobody wants that. However, the Hunter Committee's argument was that in spite of its careful search into ways whereby the fishery might be regulated, it could not suggest an workable method of doing so under the law. Again, that is not an argument. At the moment, there is no law saying that steel ought to be nationalised, but that does not stop the Socialist Party making every announcement that it is to bring one forward—it would be far better employed dealing with this important issue.
Fishing is already regulated. England regulates drift-net fishing for salmon. Scotland imposes regulations on the size of vessels fishing within three miles in certain specified areas and protection vessels have the duty of preventing unauthorised fishing. It is nonsense to say that regulation is impossible and nonsense to say that fishermen would not adhere to it if they were given the chance. As it is, the fishermen feel that they have been condemned without trial and without justice. For 2frac12; years they have waited, hoping for and expecting a fair hearing. The nets on which they spent money which the could ill afford still moulder away in sheds, useless and almost valueless. Now comes this extension for yet one more year, and I for one deplore it.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) that this has taken a long time, but I should like, in speaking of this extension, to admit the tremendous importance of the industry to Scotland. Not only is the catch of 3frac12; million lb. worth, at 7s. a lb., about £1 million, but salmon fishing is of infinitely greater value in attracting tourists to the Highlands, to my constituency, and elsewhere.
There are many urgent problems awaiting solution. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East that the Hunter Committee is taking a great deal of time to produce its Report. It has


already reported on drift netting, but many more urgent problems are awaiting solution. For years, anglers have told me that the nets at the mouths of the rivers have taken far more fish than they should and are constantly spoiling the upper reaches of the river. There is a great deal of feeling about this throughout Scotland. There is a great deal of feeling that the rivers are not properly managed. The law and the management of rivers is appallingly out of date. Only three years ago the law appeared to be operated entirely in favour of the proprietors of the rivers.
While the Hunter Committee was asked to make a complete investigation, the very first thing which it was told to do was to justify the imposition of a ban on people who were carrying out a perfectly legal pursuit outside territorial waters.
The set-up of the river boards, which consists solely of proprietors who do not even need to be appointed, is hopelessly out of date. A month ago the Tweed Commissioners at Selkirk caused the blowing up of some cols across the river in order to facilitate the passage of salmon—they had the power to order the town council to do this—with the result that the bank of the river has been weakened, endangering a housing scheme. We need entirely fresh legislation to protect the whole of the salmon industry and the catch for its monetary value and its value to the tourist trade. I hope that the Government will not wait for the Hunter Committee's recommendations before they start thinking about this extremely important subject. We need to take into consideration the needs of the whole community.
We have just given a Third Reading to a Bill to purify the waters of the rivers which will cost a lot of people a great deal of money. There is no doubt that we need new river boards with a great many more people represented on them and with more power to breed fish and create hatcheries and to regulate the rivers of Scotland for the good of the whole community. This prohibition takes from people a perfectly legal right to earn their living. It may well be that it is impossible to allow drift netting in any form. If so, it is extremely urgent that, if we accept this Order, the Government should give an

undertaking that they will proceed with all speed to put right the many other things which are wrong with this important industry in Scotland and to produce legislation of a comprehensive character within the year.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: My only reason for intervening in this debate is that it has been impressed on me that a number of members of the fishing community in Scotland, including quite a number of my constituents, feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have been, through this Order, the victims of selective and discriminatory legislation. I would not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon), but I am aware that many fishermen believe that they have been denied the right to use a method of fishing which, as my hon. Friend said, is authorised in England and other parts of the world. They also believe that they have been denied this right in order to protect the exclusive rights of the coastal fishery proprietors, and they claim that the ban imposed in September, 1962, left them with no hope of recovering the expensive investment which they made in new equipment for drift netting, as long as it remained in operation.
I believe that the previous Government were right to introduce this Order and that the present Government are right to continue it. I am glad to hear the assurance of the Minister of State that we can expect to have the final Report of the Hunter Committee this summer and that the Order will not be continued beyond the period needed to enable the Government to consider this Report.
The 1962 catch by the drift nets reached proportions which, given the very limited state of our knowledge about the salmon and the salmon's habits at that time, made it reasonable to fear that a serious threat existed to the continuation of salmon fishing in Scotland and the arrival of salmon in the rivers which they went up in order to spawn. Nor do I accept the fishermen's belief that they were suddenly faced by the ban which made it impossible for them to obtain any return on their expensive investment. In fact, I know that in my constituency my predecessor went out of his way to ensure that the fishermen should be forewarned


that the ban was likely to be imposed, and I have every reason to believe that in most cases they achieved a very satisfactory return on their investment before the ban was imposed.
There was another consideration which, with respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East, perhaps, tended to overlook. Understandably, the fishermen themselves tend to overlook it. I refer to consideration of the position of the coastal fishery proprietors, who are not insubstantial employers of labour. My hon. Friend said that the coastal fishery proprietors and the river fishers enjoyed an excellent season in 1962.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: May I correct my hon. Friend? I was quoting the words of the interim Report of the Hunter Cormmittee.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I accept that. But there are reasons for thinking that conditions in 1962 were generally exceptional. Clearly, we cannot base a calculation of what is likely to happen in future if drift netting were continued on a substantial scale on the experience of a single year.
For the drift netters this was a sideline—highly profitable, but nevertheless a sideline. There are those who believe that it encouraged these people, whose trade is essentially with the inland waters fishery fleet, to neglect their regular trade and that if they had continued to concentrate on the drift netting, there was a danger that this trade might be permanently damaged in eastern Scotland.
Nevertheless, we must subject to scrutiny the continuation of an Order which leaves a number of people feeling, whether rightly or wrongly, that they have been discriminated against, and that they are the victims of punitive legislation. This is particularly desirable on the day after we have given a Second Reading to what was, in my opinion, a lamentable Bill which could not be described as anything other than discriminatory and punitive.
It seems to me that two main problems are raised by the practice of drift netting for fishing. The first is the inadequacy of our knowledge of the habits of the salmon. I hope very much that when the Hunter Committee has completed its examination—it was bound to take a certain amount of time in view of

the complexity of the subject—it will be able to answer some at least of the questions which were unanswered in the past and that we may be better able to judge the tolerable level of the total salmon catch which we can permit in Scotland.
That leads me on to the second problem, that of control. The fishermen themselves accept the need for a measure of control over drift netting if it were to be permitted once more: but there are legitimate doubts about whether the proposals which they have made for control of these operations would be adequate.
As we have been reminded this evening, the Hunter Committee in its interim Report formed the opinion that, given that state of our knowledge of the habits of the salmon, it was not possible to devise an adequate system of control. I am not entirely convinced by that part of the interim Report. In particular, I do not feel that the Committee entirely substantiates its rejection of control by the system of catch quota. I should like to see a further examination of this possibility and I hope that the Government will consider this when the Hunter Committee's final Report is published.
Even if an effective system of control could be devised, it seems to me reasonable that the fishermen should contribute towards the cost of such control. It seems reasonable also that they should be required, like the coastal fishery proprietors, to pay a rent or licence for permission to use this method of fishing for salmon. Finally, it seems to me reasonable that they should be required to make a contribution towards the cost of improved—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The hon. Member is getting very far from what is before the House: the question whether the Order should be continued for another 12 months.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I wanted to suggest, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if we allowed drift netting to be resumed, the obligations which should be placed upon the fishermen towards the cost of a system of control and towards the improvement of fisheries in the river areas of Scotland might make this method of fishing much less attractive than it appeared to be in 1962. It therefore seems to me that if we permitted a catch


quota system, we might find that the quotas were not taken up.
I am satisfied that we must now await publication of the Hunter Committee's Report and I therefore fully accept the case for renewal of the Order. I hope that when the Hunter Committee has reported, the Government will seriously consider the possibility of devising a system of control which will enable the inland waters fishermen to participate to at least a small extent in the overall salmon fishing in Scotland without, at the same time, jeopardising the employment of those who are employed by the coastal fishing proprietors or driving the salmon away from our coasts.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: History inevitably produces quirks and in politics, perhaps, that happens more quickly than in many other ways. I appreciate the Minister of State, in his opening remarks, saying that he found himself in a somewhat embarrassing position.

Mr. Willis: I did not say that.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman used words which clearly gave that indication. I certainly appreciate that, because when my predecessor, now Viscount Muirshiel, introduced the Order, I appreciated that there was a good deal of opposition from those benches. I do not think that anybody who knew my predecessor had the slightest doubt that the reason for the action he took was that in the state of knowledge which was then available, and with the rapidly descending number of salmon which were being caught each year, he felt it right, for the protection of what the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) has stressed as being tremendously important to Scotland as a whole, to put a barrier against continued catches until more information was available.
Nobody in this short debate tonight has suggested that the Hunter Committee is delaying its Report for any other reason than that a great deal of complicated problems must be solved. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) should not be too unkind to the Hunter Committee when he says that he does not feel that the Committee was as conclusive

as it might have been in saying that something could not be conclusively demonstrated. As my hon. Friend knows very well, one of the hardest things in fishing, in the open sea as well as in the river, is to get conclusive evidence of any kind.
I think, therefore, that the Government are right to decide to wait for another year. I am certain that when the Hunter Committee has reported the Government will look carefully at the position, because I know that a great many Members on their benches, too, thoroughly enjoy fishing. I rather hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) had a good catch in 1962. I remember four days, the only four days' fishing I got, and I certainly would not like to base my decisions on the whole problem on four days in one year. I think, however, that the Government are right and I hope that the House will pass the Order.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Willis: Let me say right away to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) that I do not feel any embarrassment about this. We opposed the Order in the first place because we said that the Government did not have sufficient information on which to act. Everybody has said this tonight. Everybody has agreed with it. We asked for a committee to be set up to give us this information. We pressed for this during the whole of the Committee stage of the Sea Fish Industry Bill. It was not until that pressure had come from us for a considerable time that the Secretary of State appointed the Committee which everybody now says was so necessary.
We have nothing for which to apologise. We were right then in drawing attention to the fact that the Government did not have the evidence on which to base their hasty action. I think that we were right then to ask the Government to wait for the first interim Report, but perhaps that is a matter of opinion. Certainly we could do with a Report now.

Mr. Noble: I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I took down the words used by the hon. Gentleman when he began his speech. He talked about, "altering the present situation which we do not much like". All I


meant was that it must be slightly embarrassing to do something which one does not like doing.

Mr. Willis: I said that it was introduced by the previous Government, and that we criticised it strongly at the time because we thought that the prohibition was unfair and that a committee should have been appointed to tell us more about it prior to that happening. That is rather different from saying that we were embarrassed.
We have been right about this, and if it had not been for our pressure to set up a committee, this prohibition would have been in force for ever because the Government had nothing else to offer. Once the prohibition had been introduced, it would have been there forever, or at any rate until somebody asked, "Is it not time that we looked at this?"

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Do we understand that the prohibition will be taken off in 1966?

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman must wait arid see. We are discussing the events about which he spoke, and I am saying that that Committee was appointed as a result of pressure from us when we were on that side of the House. What would the position have been without that? When would the position have been reviewed? In the light of what information would it have been reviewed?
I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) waxed so furious about this, because he was one of those who instigated this movement. He rushed down here to get into action to prohibit this type of fishing. He enlisted the aid of the former Member for South Angus, and between them they panicked the Government into hasty statements and hasty actions. That is what happened. We remember, too, the debate in another place at the time, when we had all sorts of backwoodsmen journeying to London for the first time for years to see that something was done about this. That is the past history, and in the light of all that, and in the light of what has happened since, we have nothing about which to be apologetic.
The hon. Gentleman said that this process was taking too long. That was

the burden of the speeches of several hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is a difficult subject. The law on the matter is very old. It covers a number of activities, and covers something about which it is difficult to get accurate information. Even today this has become increasingly obvious. In the circumstances, I do not think that we ought to be too critical of the Hunter Committee. It will report in the early summer, and, as I have said, we will consider the Report as quickly as we can to decide what should happen when this Order expires.
The hon. Gentleman asked why Scottish inshore fishermen could not be given the same rights as English fishermen round the shores of England. He knows the answer to that question. The position is quite different. This has been a traditional form of fishing activity round the shores of England for a long time. It has created no problems at all, and it is because the situation which suddenly arose in Scotland in 1960 created serious problems that action had to be taken. This was the argument put forward at the time by the Government, and the reason why the necessary legislation was passed and the Order was introduced. The situation being different in Scotland, one would expect it to be treated differently.
The hon. Gentleman also said that in its interim Report the Hunter Committee did not produce enough evidence to show that it was impossible to regulate or to control this activity. He quoted one or two passages from the Report which showed that the Hunter Committee was itself weighing up the arguments about this matter, but I do not think that he can ignore the conclusion, which is emphatically stated in paragraph 162. Having weighed up the facts, the Hunter Committee said:
The position we have reached is that we are in no doubt that an unregulated drift-net fishery cannot by permitted and we have been unable to discover any workable system of regulating a drift-net fishery under the existing law.
That is a pretty clear statement of the Hunter Committee's conclusions.
The Committee did not say that there might not be one. It said that it had been unable to find it, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Committee devoted a number of paragraphs, from 131 onwards, to examining the various proposals which were made by the interested bodies to find


some means of regulating and controlling this activity. But that was the Committee's conclusion, and I think that we are bound to accept it until the Committee has examined the problem in its wider aspects.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie) also said that the Hunter Committee had been sitting for a long time, and that he wanted the matter to be treated as one of urgency. I agree with him. This is a problem in Scotland which calls for action. The whole question of salmon fishing in Scotland is being examined. It will have to be tackled.
It is one of our assets, and we must use it in the best possible way, both for the areas concerned—for their economic health and prosperity—and also in the wider interests of the people as a whole. The hon. Member can be assured that we have the matter very much in mind. When we receive the Hunter Report we shall waste no time in considering it and seeing what ought to be done.
The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) made a number of suggestions about the type of control that might be exercised. Before we discuss that question, however, we should see what the Hunter Committee has to say about it. It might adopt some of the hon. Member's proposals; we do not know. We ought to wait until we receive its final Report before we speculate about what should be done. If we wait until then we shall have something concrete on which to work. We shall have many more facts than we have at present. Other people's minds will have been applied to the situation for a long time, and, judging the calibre of the Committee, I would have thought that it ought to be able to make some suggestions into which we can get our teeth, and which can form a basis on which we can act.

Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: How can the Hunter Committee produce any further recommendation for regulations, or any fresh thinking on this point, which is any different from what it has already produced in the interim Report?

Mr. Willis: What it has been doing is to consider the question in isolation. What it is now doing is to examine all

the other aspects which enter into the problem—the interests of coastal fishing proprietors, river fishers and anglers. It is considering the problem in the wider context in order to try to produce a better solution than the present one. We hope that it will be able to do so.
It will also be able to consider in what way the law may have to be altered in order to enable us to make whatever changes are necessary. I hope that the changes will be significant ones.
I have dealt with the main points which have been raised in the debate. It may be that I answered rather aggressively in the case of the right hon. Member for Argyll but I have tried to answer all the points, and I hope that the House will now agree to the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Salmon and Migratory Trout (Prohibition of Drift-net Fishing) (Extension) Order, 1964, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Resolved,
That one-tenth of the sums deducted or set aside in the current year from the salaries of Members of Parliament under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939, and one-tenth of the contribution determined by the Treasury for the current year under section 1 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948.—[Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre.]

Orders of the Day — RAILWAYS BOARD (LAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Lawson.]

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: It is with a sense of temerity that I now come south of the Border and start talking about railway land in the centre of London. However, there it is. The ways of Parliamentary democracy are strange, and often weird. I am grateful to have the opportunity of raising this matter tonight, because it is of great concern to my constituents and to many other


people who live in and around London. When local authorities in London consider where they are to build their council houses from now on they see that almost the only land available in London on which they can build without first having to pull something down is railway land, or the two airports about which we have heard in the last two days.
In my constituency there are some acres at the North End Road railway sidings which are nicely located, and on which the local authority would like to get its hands in order to be able to put up some council houses. So far, it has not been able to do so. A solution may emerge in time.
First, I want to deal with the scope of the problem, and the object of my raising it tonight, and then what I hope the Ministry can do. I am told that in the metropolitan County of London about 3,000 acres of land are owned by the Railways Board. Of that land, about 136 acres is at present occupied by railway terminals. Perhaps I could come back to that in a moment. In Middlesex, there are about 4,805 acres of railway land, of which 1,440 are owned by the London Passenger Transport Board. The amount of land released by the Railways Board to the counties is 216 acres in Middlesex and 685 acres in London. On any view of the matter there is a lot of land still owned by the Railways Board in Middlesex and in London.
A large part of the calculation in arriving at the total acreage of railway land consists of most of the land on which tracks are laid and stations and the rest of it are sited. A large part of that would, in any circumstances, be needed for railway purposes, but particularly since the ban on office building was imposed, on 5th November last year, I would think that there were reasons for hoping that the Board might find itself in a position to release more land for municipal development than has hitherto been the case.
It seems to me that there are two points to consider. First, can more land be released by the Railways Board, and, secondly, is the best use being made now of the land which it is prepared to release and has already released? On the question whether more land could be released, perhaps the House would like to consider for a moment the statutory provision

which regulates releases between the Railways Board and the London County Council. It is Section 87 of the Transport Act, 1962.
By that Section transport boards are required, particularly so far as London is concerned, to
consult the London County Council as to the use of their land in the administrative county of London so far as that land is not required for the purposes of their business, and to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposals with regard to the use of that land in a manner which is consistent with proper planning and which, in particular, is consistent with the need for keeping a proper balance in the use of their land as between new office accommodation and other accommodation for trade, business and industry on the one hand, and new living accommodation … on the other hand …
Pausing there for a moment, one specific thing that it is required by Section 87 that the Board takes into account is the balance between new office accommodation and other accommodation. To a certain extent the balance has been disturbed, now that an office building ban has been imposed, and I assume that is one thing that the Railways Board will not now have to take into account.
Negotiations have, as I understand it, been centralised, and take place directly between the Railways Board and the L.C.C. and not at regional level. In August of last year, in the process of consultation, the London County Council sent 134 detailed plans to the Railways Board, asking the Board to define once and for all the sites for redevelopment as the Board saw them. I understand that up to about 10 days ago—I regret that my information is not more recent—20 plans had been sent back.
About that, I would make two points. The first is whether the Railways Board has enough technical staff to deal with this sort of highly technical matter, for 134 plans take a lot of looking at and time to deal with. I wonder whether additional staff might be taken on or reallocated within the Board so as to deal with this part of the matter.
My second point is a more natural one. If someone goes to the Railways Board and says, "Once and for all, tell me what sites you are to release" there is, of course, an inclination on the part of the Board to hoard. I make no criticism of the Railways Board about


this; it is a natural inclination and one of which we may all be guilty from time to time.
There is an inclination to say, "Perhaps we had better not throw that away. Although we cannot use it today, we might be able to do so in the future." Therefore, one is never quite sure of the amount of land which the Railways Board has released or whether this natural inclination to hang on to it because it might need it in the future has played any part in arriving at their calculations.
I do not attack the Railways Board. The London County Council tells me that it is very pleased with and grateful for the co-operation which it is now receiving from the Railways Board in drawing these plans, getting them agreed and also in trying to sort out what should be done with the land which the Board is prepared to release. It is still impossible for us to tell at this stage exactly how much more land the Railways Board at present possesses which it might possibly be able to release for municipal development, particularly in the London area, unless there is again a searching review, particularly having regard to the changed circumstances.
We all know, for example, that within the last three or four months additional land has been released from the Bishops-gate goods yard which has now been offered for development. That may perhaps be a special case because of the fire there. The land and the buildings on it may no longer be available or suitable for railway development and possibly the Board is, therefore, now prepared to release it whereas it was not prepared to do so before.
I believe that there are 10 acres in Wandsworth which, judging from the rumours, might well be released by the Railways Board for municipal development in the future. In Middlesex, also, there are rumours—I put it no higher—of 80 acres in the Lea Valley which the Railway Board may be prepared to release for development. I believe that it is called Pickett's Lock, though I may be wrong about that. These three instances within the last month or two, although one does not wish to found a case on them, give ground for suggesting that the Railways Board should go back

and have another look at the amount of land which it has and the amount of land which it might possibly be prepared to release for development. What we want to know is whether the Minister can ensure that the Board has this further look to see that the absolute maximum amount of land is released which can be released.
That is the first part of the argument. The second part is whether the best use is being made of land which the Board has already said that it is prepared to release. I am told that the Railways Board, in the London County Council area, has said that it is prepared to release about 615 acres—at least, that is the L.C.C.'s calculation; the Railways Board's calculation was about 685 acres.
It is here that the office ban will have its greatest effect if it has any effect at all. I think, for example, of decking over the central termini. To put houses over a terminal station is an incredibly expensive job and the L.C.C.'s own estimate was that if one built over the railway termini one could use 56 acres for housing, but that it would cost £2,000 to £6,500 per dwelling. This is highly uneconomic and for this reason, not unnaturally, the local authorities have not been inclined to start building houses at these prices. On the other hand, what had been proposed to go over the termini, as I understand it, was some commercial development, perhaps some office development.
That development has now come to a stop as a result of the ban. If it has come to a stop as a result of the ban, two things will follow—either no decking will take place because there could not now be offices there and to put up most other things would be uneconomic, or something else would go there which is not municipal housing. It is the second possibility that I should like to turn to for a moment. The L.C.C. has suggested that the central terminal sites could be developed for university or further education purposes, for hotels or hostels or car parks and that surplus land not allocated for housing could be used for schools, open space, shopping, social services, car parking, and, where no other use is possible, industry or commerce.
If that suggestion were adopted, it is quite possible that the difficulty of using the decks over the terminal stations for


that sort of use might well release land in other parts of the metropolitan area which could then be used for municipal housing purposes. I agree that it is a difficult question and that there is a difficult balance to maintain, particularly having regard to the immensely high cost of decking. But land is so incredibly short in the London area that I hope that the Minister will do something to ensure that, although no offices in a commercial sense are allowed on the decking above terminal stations, at least some sort of development will take place there which might release land in other parts of London.
Those are the two points which I wished to make tonight: can more land be released by the Railways Board and is the best use being made of the land which has already been released? I am sure that I speak for everyone on this side of the House in saying that we are extremely glad that the sort of commercial development originally proposed for some of the railway land in London has been stopped firmly by the complete ban on office building announced on 5th November.
An argument which always struck me as rather absurd, in favour of putting offices at terminal stations, was that if we put an office above Paddington everyone would get off the train at Paddington and rush into that office. If we could ensure that everyone who got off the train at Paddington worked in the office there, and did not have to cross London to get to their offices, or, alternatively, if we could ensure that people who came by train to Euston did not have to go across London to work in offices above Paddington, there would be a point in the argument. But if decking is to take place, I hope that it will not be the sort of commercial development which, apparently, was in mind at some stage.
This is an urgent problem in London for we are desperately short of land. I am pleased to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing on the Front Bench, because he knows far better than I do how desperate is London's shortage of land and how urgent it is that the maximum possible amount of land should be released for municipal housing purposes. This is why I am so glad that there has been this opportunity of raising the subject tonight.

8.47 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): First of all, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for the very full notice which he gave me of the points he intended to raise tonight on this very important subject. Personally, I am extremely glad that he has had more time than is usual on the Adjournment Motion to develop his points in, if I may say so, the extremely competent and fluent way in which he has spoken.
It is somewhat unexpected that the Motion is moved at this time of the evening, because we understood that this week we were to be subjected to attack by a reinvigorated Opposition, who are so conspicuous by their 100 per cent. absence from this debate. Even after the many years of experience which you and I, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, have had in the House, surely we find it somewhat astonishing that no hon. Member of the Opposition is sufficiently interested in finding land in London and around it for urgent housing purposes to consider it even worthwhile to attend and listen to the case put forward by my hon. Friend.
I trust that the public of London and around will note that at 8.50 p.m. in the House of Commons, after long notice had been given of the intention to raise this extremely important matter—important to so many local authorities in London—there is not one hon. Member of the Opposition in the Chamber, not even to attend and listen to the cogent case which has been put forward by my hon. Friend, quite apart from taking part in the debate.
Let me start by saying that we fully share the urgent concern of my hon. Friend about finding land, any land at all, to grapple with the housing shortage in London. I am extremely glad and fortified to have with me the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing, who is especially concerned with the London housing problem and who has been putting a certain amount of dynamism into this matter recently. As a Government we are determined to grapple with this problem, which we have inherited owing to the inadequacy of the measures—that is an understatement—which have been taken over the years.


The House will recall that yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made an important statement announcing a series of measures which are being taken by his Department to deal with the London housing shortage.
Tonight we are concerned—at any rate, on this side of the House we are concerned; I cannot speak for hon. Members opposite because there are no hon. Members opposite present—with the small but important contribution which the British Railways Board can make or is making to release land surplus to its operational requirements to help deal with the problem raised by my hon. Friend.
I will briefly sketch the background to that problem and set out the position which was inherited by this Government. The British Railways Board's duties in this matter were laid down in the Transport Act, 1962, from which my hon. Friend quoted. Under that Act the Board had the job of doing everything possible to improve its financial position. To help it to do this, Section 14 of that Act gave it power to dispose of any property not required for the purposes of its railway business. Further, under Section 11 of that Act the Board was given power to develop surplus land by the building of offices or shops or the leasing of them. It is within the discretionary powers of the Board, under that Statute, to decide whether its surplus land should be sold or developed, subject always to the requirements of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Acts.
During the passage of the 1962 Act fears were expressed that the Board might be encouraged to dispose of too much of its surplus land for the more profitable kind of development—office building—rather than for what might be termed development more beneficial socially—sites for housing. These fears were especially directed to the situation in London and, as a result, Section 87 was written into the Measure—a special provision whereby the Board, having consulted the London County Council, as the London authority at that time, was required to submit for the approval of the Minister of Housing and Local Government proposals for the future use of its surplus land in the County. It was

further required that the proposals should strike a balance between what were considered to be employment-creating uses—office building, industrial development and so on—and uses for residential purposes; namely, housing sites.
In spite of the good intentions which lay behind Section 87 of the Act, this provision has proved quite unworkable. Its effect over many years has been to sterilise a lot of land in the London area. As many hon. Members know, there have been protracted consultations between the Board, the London County Council and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but they have totally failed to produce any agreed scheme maintaining this so-called balance between the provision of sites for housing and the provision of sites for office building or more profitable development.
The proposals originally submitted by the Railways Board were objected to by the London County Council, and the revised proposals which scaled down what might be called the employment side of the balance whilst leaving the housing side of the balance unchanged had only just been submitted to the London County Council when this present Government took office. That was the statutory position and the practical position that we inherited.
So we come, as my hon. Friend has said, to November, 1964, with the inception of the Labour Government. The Labour Government made the important and so long overdue decision in London to control office building. It is in view of this that there is now no question at all for the time being of the building of office blocks, luxury or otherwise, on surplus railway land. The search for a negotiated balance in the use of surplus railway land has been superseded by the policies of this Government.
As I said, until recently all the surplus railway land in London had been virtually sterilised as a result of the position created by the 1962 Transport Act, to the detriment of the finances of the Railways Board—because no effective proposals were emerging or action being taken—and, of course, to the detriment of the efforts of local authorities in London grappling with the urgent housing problem.
I am pleased to be able to tell the House that since this Government took


office, in spite of the shortness of time, considerable progress in this matter has already been made. Consultations have been taking place between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Railways Board in the last few weeks. At the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing, the Board has now given an assurance that it is willing to make available all the surplus land suitable for housing that it has in the metropolitan area.
I can give that as a definite assurance as a result of developments that have taken place in the last few weeks. In fact, I can say that the Board is now anxious to speed up the disposal of any of its surplus property that is suitable for housing or for other municipal purposes, and the Board's officers are already in close touch with the valuer of the Greater London Council for the purpose of agreeing an effective and phased programme for the acquisition of the land by the G.L.C.
Further, let me make it absolutely clear that there is now no question of holding back any surplus land in the possession of the Board that is shown to be suitable for housing or other municipal purposes. We all, including the Board, want to get on with the job of making this land available as soon as possible for the purposes for which it is so urgently needed.
Some anxiety has been expressed about the fact that the British Railways Board is negotiating with the Greater London Council and not, save in exceptional cases, with the London boroughs. I must make plain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government has asked the Greater London Council to act as an agent for all the housing authorities in the Greater London area in these negotiations. We want to see the most flexible machinery develop to deal with this problem, but at the moment we had to take some immediate action, and that has been taken by the Minister. Negotiations are proceeding centrally between the British Railways Board and the Greater London Council to take over the sites. This, of course, is completely without prejudice to the question of the future ownership or development of the land, which must be a subject for discussion between the Greater London

Council and all the London Boroughs concerned.
I assure my hon. Friend, and all those many hon. Members on this side of the House who are vitally interested in this matter, that the Board's officers are now in close co-operation with the Greater London Council on a definite programme for releasing this land, but, of course, the land to be released is land which the Railways Board judges not to be required by it for operational purposes. About that we must be absolutely plain. So far as we know at the moment the officials of the L.C.C., or what is to become the G.L.C. are satisfied—in contrast with the situation which existed in the past to which my hon. Friend referred and which we have overcome—that these negotiations are effective and will produce results.
I now come to the practical side of the matter. The Board had originally proposed to offer 144 sites, comprising about 700 acres of land, for development by the Greater London Council. The Greater London Council has already been advised that 20 sites are available for release now for housing or other municipal purposes. The Board has promised to make other sites available as soon as it is clear that they are not required for operational purposes. Ten sites have already been sold to local authorities. The Board is now in process of assembling details of a further 85 sites which, although they are outside the existing L.C.C. area are situated in places in which the officials of the Greater London Council have expressed an interest.
The ten sites already sold to local authorities, to which I have referred, are located in Woolwich, East Ham, East Barnet, West Ham, Merton and Morden, Shepherds Bush, Walthamstow, Southgate and Stevenage, where 28 acres of railway surplus land were recently made available. Those are the ten sites where negotiations have already been clinched and where railway surplus land has been made available for housing and other municipal purposes. As my hon. Friend indicated, there is a considerable reservoir. The British Railways Board has 700 acres to be made available and is in close contact with the G.L.C., working out how those sites can be made available quickly.
The British Railways Board informs me that it is offering to the officials of the Greater London Council every facility to survey railway land in advance of its release from railway use so that no time may be lost in planning the redevelopment of land which the Board knows will not be required in future for operational purposes. I hope the local authorities can be brought into the picture and decisions taken and plans matured as to how best these sites may be used.
This is the situation that exists. We inherited a state of deadlock as a result of the Act of 1962 and the fact that obligations were imposed upon the Railways Board which were impossible to carry out. A frustrating situation was created with the financial pressure on the Board as a result of its statutory duty under the 1962 Act to pay its way, and the incitement to the Board to seek the most profitable—irrespective of social needs—disposal of surplus land. 
We have corrected that by the action of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in putting a stop on luxury office building in London. This has enabled a realistic appraisal to be made of the subject and a new chapter of negotiations to be opened between the Railways Board, the Greater London Council and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. That Ministry, represented here by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, has a great responsibility and is getting on with the job of consulting local housing authorities about their needs. 
Already we can show practical results in the disposal of sites since the General Election from the Railways Board to housing authorities in and around the London area. We hope now to get on with the job. The Railways Board is clear that it wants to get on with the job of disposing of the surplus land as rapidly as possible. We know the great need in the London area. We hope that all the authorities will democratically come together and ascertain how the hundreds of acres can be most fruitfully, effectively and purposefully used so as to cope realistically with the tremendous housing shortage in the London area.

Mr. Richard: Before my hon. Friend sits down, I should like to thank him on behalf of the London Members who are present. It is good news for London that we have had tonight.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. John Hynd: A most important pronouncement has been made. It is a statement which indicates the speed and effectiveness with which the Government are moving in one of the most vital sectors of our political and public life. I do not represent a London constituency. None the less, this is part of a great national problem. 
In the 21 years that I have been in the House I cannot recall a single occasion on which any subject, however remote or minor, was discussed, even on the Adjournment at any hour of the night, without a single representative on the Opposition benches above the Gangway. There is not a single representative on the Opposition Front Bench, not even a Junior Whip. We have heard so much about the all-out attack on the Government that was to be made by the Opposition under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, and one wonders why, when we are dealing with a vital matter concerning the housing of the people of this great city, not a single member of the Opposition is present.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): By way of supplement to what my right hon. Friend is saying, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) gave certain pledges to his electors at the General Election and said that one of the things with which he would be concerned was the question of railway land in his constituency being made available for housing. One would have thought that, even if there was no other right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have redeemed at least one pledge.

Mr. Hynd: I was just coming to that. In the course of the last two years we have heard repeatedly from members of the chief Opposition party about their concern over the housing problem within their constituencies in the London area


and their demands for the release of certain land—Woolwich Arsenal, for instance—for the purpose of building houses. It passes my comprehension that, on an occasion like this, when we are dealing with a most important statement about the special release of land and immediate and effective Government action in order to meet the demands of their constituents, right hon. and hon. Members are absent from the benches opposite. I hope that the maximum publicity will be given to the fact that the representatives of those people are just not interested. 
I want to draw public attention to the absence of hon. Members opposite as a non-London Member who, nevertheless, is sufficiently appreciative of the importance of this issue to be present. I add my appreciation to that expressed already to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and to the Government in general for their action on this matter and for so many of the other

dynamic steps that they have taken to put in order the affairs of the country during the last few weeks.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Ernest G. Perry: I rise to thank sincerely my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I represent a London constituency and I am a member of the Battersea Borough Council and of the new London Borough of Wandsworth. The news my hon. Friend has given tonight is the climax of a campaign we have waged for two years to bring disused railway land into use for housing. His announcement will bring great relief to my constituency and to neighbouring constituencies. I acclaim his statement that land which has lain dormant for so long will now be used for the benefit of the people of London.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes past Nine o'clock.